PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-24 10:13:11 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	e5927e1db9	fix: give commentary its own default read permission (#16903 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - Commentary collects agent suggestions and complaints for company members. > - Commentary used the permission for detailed agent-action audits. > - Owners, admins and viewers could therefore receive a permission error when they opened Commentary. > - This pull request gives commentary its own permission and enables it for all human company roles. > - Members can read feedback while task privacy and detailed audit access keep their own checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16884, which added the Commentary browser. A search found no open PR for this permission fix. What happened? Commentary returned `Missing permission: audit:view_agent_actions` for company members without the detailed audit grant. Default owners, admins and viewers did not receive that grant. Expected behavior All human company roles can read commentary by default. A separate `commentary:view` permission controls this access. Private source tasks remain private. Commentary access does not grant detailed agent-action audits or CSV exports. Steps to reproduce 1. Sign in as an active company owner, admin or viewer without `audit:view_agent_actions`. 2. Open Audit, then Commentary. 3. Observe the permission error before this change. Paperclip version or commit Base commit: `7c58ea07b2`. Deployment mode Authenticated server or Cloud tenant. ## What Changed - Add `commentary:view` to the shared permission contract and all human role defaults. - Require that permission for commentary list and detail reads. - Add an idempotent upgrade migration for existing active human members. Preserve existing grants and scopes. - Add the commentary default when approving saved human invitation grants that omit it, including pre-upgrade invitations. Preserve explicit commentary scopes. - Add regression coverage for role defaults, permission removal, audit separation, private tasks and migration replay. - Update the API description, specifications, database notes and access maps. ## Verification - Passed 68 tests across commentary reads, role grants, old-invitation HTTP acceptance, migration replay, agent audit routes, access services and migration snapshot drift under the repository's locked dependencies. - Confirmed the new role and read tests failed before the implementation. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Migration numbering and safety checks passed during the build. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally after the invitation fix. - The final-commit CI matrix passed, including all test shards, typecheck, build, public-install checks and canary smoke. The redundant local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the full CI matrix completed; the 68 focused local regressions passed separately. - The first install bypassed the stale lockfile and selected a newer diff-viewer API. The initial typecheck and build failed in that unrelated plugin. Installing the locked versions cleared both failures; the tracked lockfile is unchanged. - The first locked-dependency regression run hit the 15-second limit while importing the audit route graph in its first test. Moving that import into suite setup fixed the timeout; all 58 regressions then passed. - Greptile found that pre-upgrade invitations retain old grant lists. New helper and HTTP regressions reproduced this gap before the fix, then passed after approval added the missing commentary default. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no remaining actionable findings. Its earlier thread is resolved. - No UI code changed. The permission tests use real disposable PostgreSQL databases and HTTP routes. ## Risks - The upgrade deliberately enables commentary for every existing active human company member, including viewers. Existing commentary grants retain their saved scopes. - Source-task privacy still filters previews, counts, searches and full messages. Agent-authenticated browsing remains denied. - Agent-action audit grants, detailed filters and CSV export permissions keep their current behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository editing and command execution. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 16:58:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e6dcd1e8e9	feat: add Commentary to Audit with filters and shareable messages (#16884 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can submit suggestions and complaints while they work. > - Operators currently need database access to read those messages. > - That makes it hard to find feedback from one agent or share a specific message. > - This pull request adds a standard Commentary tab in Audit. > - Operators can filter messages, browse 50 at a time, and share links to full message dialogs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15367, which added feedback storage and agent submission. The duplicate search found no open PR for a commentary reader. Subsystem affected Server, shared API contracts, and the board UI. Problem or motivation Agent suggestions and complaints are stored but have no board reader. Operators must query the database to inspect feedback. Proposed solution Add Commentary to Audit without an experimental toggle. Show previews, agent and message-type filters, text search, and 50-message pages. Opening a row updates the URL. A copied URL opens the full message with its agent, task, and run context. Alternatives considered Direct database queries remain useful for operators, but do not provide a normal product workflow. An experimental setting would add setup to a read-only audit page. Roadmap alignment This completes the operator view for the existing feedback feature. It supports human oversight and does not change agent execution or task ownership. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped, board-only list and detail endpoints with audit permission and source-task privacy checks. - Return bounded previews and counts. Fetch full bodies only when a message opens. - Add the Commentary tab, search, filters, 50-row pagination, and URL-based selection. Audit tab destinations work in both layouts, with a classic sidebar entry for Commentary. - Add production Storybook examples for populated, filtered, linked, long, paginated, empty, loading, failed, denied, mobile, and light states. - Update API documentation and the feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - Final head `abc4a251c14cfbfec007542214beec528f2b18bf`: 55 checks pass; two conditional Storybook checks are skipped. The PR workflow is successful. Greptile is 5/5 with all findings resolved. - Focused database, HTTP, submission, OpenAPI, and UI regression tests cover company isolation, task privacy, filter bounds, 50-row pagination, and copied message links. - Browser Storybook journeys cover row opening, direct links, combined filters, search, and pagination. Storybook uses synthetic API fixtures; database authorization is tested separately. - Token gates, feature maps, and Storybook catalog validation pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm build-storybook` pass on the rebased branch. All 80 focused tests and all 37 Audit tests pass, including the real App route table in both layouts, task grant/revocation through HTTP, deleted-task privacy, and URL UI regressions. The full suite passes in the parallel PR CI matrix. The local serial full-suite run was stopped before completion after checking the recorded 94-minute serial duration. Local focused tests, workspace typecheck, production build, and final server/UI checks pass. - The linked-message Storybook test initially asserted against the loading dialog. It now waits for the message body; both direct-link and row-open journeys pass. - Native and legacy deleted-task privacy regressions failed before the fix and pass afterward. The reader checks the run task binding after the task foreign key clears. - A rapid search-then-agent-filter browser regression reproduced the search overwriting the selected agent. The pending search now restarts when URL filters change. The same browser test passes with both filters applied. - CI found two existing AuditHub assertions that still expected five tabs. They now assert the six-tab model and selected-company Commentary rendering. All 37 Audit tests pass. All other test and build jobs passed before this test-only correction. - The [agent-chat attachment browser test](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39307881171/job/118250189664) timed out waiting for an attachment preview. The [same shard passed on the prior head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39306658703/job/118245498343) with identical application code; the intervening change only updates AuditHub unit tests. The single retry passed on the same head. The precise cause of the earlier failure remains unconfirmed. ## Risks - Commentary may contain sensitive task context. The reader requires board access and audit permission, and filters source-task visibility before returning previews, counts, or full bodies. - Text search scans stored message bodies. Pages are bounded and full bodies are fetched on demand. - Offset pagination can shift if new messages arrive while paging. Ordering uses timestamp and ID for stable ties. - No database migration or agent submission behavior changes are required. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, browser interaction, and code execution. The exact backend model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 14:21:13 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

e5927e1db9

fix: give commentary its own default read permission (#16903 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and inspect their work.
> - Commentary collects agent suggestions and complaints for company
members.
> - Commentary used the permission for detailed agent-action audits.
> - Owners, admins and viewers could therefore receive a permission
error when they opened Commentary.
> - This pull request gives commentary its own permission and enables it
for all human company roles.
> - Members can read feedback while task privacy and detailed audit
access keep their own checks.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #16884, which added the Commentary browser. A search found no open
PR for this permission fix.

**What happened?**

Commentary returned `Missing permission: audit:view_agent_actions` for
company members without the detailed audit grant. Default owners, admins
and viewers did not receive that grant.

**Expected behavior**

All human company roles can read commentary by default. A separate
`commentary:view` permission controls this access. Private source tasks
remain private. Commentary access does not grant detailed agent-action
audits or CSV exports.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Sign in as an active company owner, admin or viewer without
`audit:view_agent_actions`.
2. Open Audit, then Commentary.
3. Observe the permission error before this change.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Base commit: `7c58ea07b2`.

**Deployment mode**

Authenticated server or Cloud tenant.

## What Changed

- Add `commentary:view` to the shared permission contract and all human
role defaults.
- Require that permission for commentary list and detail reads.
- Add an idempotent upgrade migration for existing active human members.
Preserve existing grants and scopes.
- Add the commentary default when approving saved human invitation
grants that omit it, including pre-upgrade invitations. Preserve
explicit commentary scopes.
- Add regression coverage for role defaults, permission removal, audit
separation, private tasks and migration replay.
- Update the API description, specifications, database notes and access
maps.

## Verification

- Passed 68 tests across commentary reads, role grants, old-invitation
HTTP acceptance, migration replay, agent audit routes, access services
and migration snapshot drift under the repository's locked dependencies.
- Confirmed the new role and read tests failed before the
implementation.
- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed.
- Migration numbering and safety checks passed during the build.
- Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally after the
invitation fix.
- The final-commit CI matrix passed, including all test shards,
typecheck, build, public-install checks and canary smoke. The redundant
local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the full CI matrix completed;
the 68 focused local regressions passed separately.
- The first install bypassed the stale lockfile and selected a newer
diff-viewer API. The initial typecheck and build failed in that
unrelated plugin. Installing the locked versions cleared both failures;
the tracked lockfile is unchanged.
- The first locked-dependency regression run hit the 15-second limit
while importing the audit route graph in its first test. Moving that
import into suite setup fixed the timeout; all 58 regressions then
passed.
- Greptile found that pre-upgrade invitations retain old grant lists.
New helper and HTTP regressions reproduced this gap before the fix, then
passed after approval added the missing commentary default.
- Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no remaining actionable
findings. Its earlier thread is resolved.
- No UI code changed. The permission tests use real disposable
PostgreSQL databases and HTTP routes.

## Risks

- The upgrade deliberately enables commentary for every existing active
human company member, including viewers. Existing commentary grants
retain their saved scopes.
- Source-task privacy still filters previews, counts, searches and full
messages. Agent-authenticated browsing remains denied.
- Agent-action audit grants, detailed filters and CSV export permissions
keep their current behavior.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository editing and
command execution. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not
exposed to this session.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-19 16:58:17 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

e6dcd1e8e9

feat: add Commentary to Audit with filters and shareable messages (#16884 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents can submit suggestions and complaints while they work.
> - Operators currently need database access to read those messages.
> - That makes it hard to find feedback from one agent or share a
specific message.
> - This pull request adds a standard Commentary tab in Audit.
> - Operators can filter messages, browse 50 at a time, and share links
to full message dialogs.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #15367, which added feedback storage and agent submission. The
duplicate search found no open PR for a commentary reader.

**Subsystem affected**

Server, shared API contracts, and the board UI.

**Problem or motivation**

Agent suggestions and complaints are stored but have no board reader.
Operators must query the database to inspect feedback.

**Proposed solution**

Add Commentary to Audit without an experimental toggle. Show previews,
agent and message-type filters, text search, and 50-message pages.
Opening a row updates the URL. A copied URL opens the full message with
its agent, task, and run context.

**Alternatives considered**

Direct database queries remain useful for operators, but do not provide
a normal product workflow. An experimental setting would add setup to a
read-only audit page.

**Roadmap alignment**

This completes the operator view for the existing feedback feature. It
supports human oversight and does not change agent execution or task
ownership.

## What Changed

- Add company-scoped, board-only list and detail endpoints with audit
permission and source-task privacy checks.
- Return bounded previews and counts. Fetch full bodies only when a
message opens.
- Add the Commentary tab, search, filters, 50-row pagination, and
URL-based selection. Audit tab destinations work in both layouts, with a
classic sidebar entry for Commentary.
- Add production Storybook examples for populated, filtered, linked,
long, paginated, empty, loading, failed, denied, mobile, and light
states.
- Update API documentation and the feature and agent access maps.

## Verification

- Final head `abc4a251c14cfbfec007542214beec528f2b18bf`: 55 checks pass;
two conditional Storybook checks are skipped. The PR workflow is
successful. Greptile is 5/5 with all findings resolved.
- Focused database, HTTP, submission, OpenAPI, and UI regression tests
cover company isolation, task privacy, filter bounds, 50-row pagination,
and copied message links.
- Browser Storybook journeys cover row opening, direct links, combined
filters, search, and pagination. Storybook uses synthetic API fixtures;
database authorization is tested separately.
- Token gates, feature maps, and Storybook catalog validation pass.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm build-storybook` pass on
the rebased branch. All 80 focused tests and all 37 Audit tests pass,
including the real App route table in both layouts, task
grant/revocation through HTTP, deleted-task privacy, and URL UI
regressions. The full suite passes in the parallel PR CI matrix. The
local serial full-suite run was stopped before completion after checking
the recorded 94-minute serial duration. Local focused tests, workspace
typecheck, production build, and final server/UI checks pass.
- The linked-message Storybook test initially asserted against the
loading dialog. It now waits for the message body; both direct-link and
row-open journeys pass.
- Native and legacy deleted-task privacy regressions failed before the
fix and pass afterward. The reader checks the run task binding after the
task foreign key clears.
- A rapid search-then-agent-filter browser regression reproduced the
search overwriting the selected agent. The pending search now restarts
when URL filters change. The same browser test passes with both filters
applied.
- CI found two existing AuditHub assertions that still expected five
tabs. They now assert the six-tab model and selected-company Commentary
rendering. All 37 Audit tests pass. All other test and build jobs passed
before this test-only correction.

- The [agent-chat attachment browser
test](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39307881171/job/118250189664)
timed out waiting for an attachment preview. The [same shard passed on
the prior
head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39306658703/job/118245498343)
with identical application code; the intervening change only updates
AuditHub unit tests. The single retry passed on the same head. The
precise cause of the earlier failure remains unconfirmed.

## Risks

- Commentary may contain sensitive task context. The reader requires
board access and audit permission, and filters source-task visibility
before returning previews, counts, or full bodies.
- Text search scans stored message bodies. Pages are bounded and full
bodies are fetched on demand.
- Offset pagination can shift if new messages arrive while paging.
Ordering uses timestamp and ID for stable ties.
- No database migration or agent submission behavior changes are
required.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, browser
interaction, and code execution. The exact backend model ID and
context-window size are not exposed in this session.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-19 14:21:13 -05:00