3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	4b89eec644	fix: check selected workspace projects before offering retry (#17552) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task recovery explains access failures before a user retries saved work. > - A task project and its selected workspace are separate settings. > - Moving a task can retain files from a project that the agent cannot access. > - The recovery notice checked only the task project or a past failure record. > - This pull request checks the projects required by the current workspace selection. > - The notice now offers Retry only after those project checks pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to #17509. Related: #13230 concerns workspace binding consistency; this fix changes recovery presentation only. **What happened?** A task could show “Project access is ready” after moving to an allowed project while keeping a repository from a denied project. Typed failures could also keep the notice blocked after an authorized workspace replacement. **Expected behavior** Use the current task, workspace, and source project requirements. Honor a valid pending selection for the next admission. Keep stale, archived, or missing selections blocked without offering a project-permission repair. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a low-trust agent to a task whose selected source belongs to a denied project. 2. Persist a project access failure. 3. Move the task to an allowed project without changing its selected files. 4. Reload the task. The notice must still explain the access block. 5. Select an allowed source through the workspace API. Reload the task. The notice must offer an explicit retry without starting work. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced after #17509 on master. The regression failed on the old projection and passed with this change. ## What Changed - Batch the current workspace project requirements for tasks with project access failures. - Check retained workspace and source projects, plus valid pending workspace selections. - Keep unknown historical denial projects unnamed. Do not expose unrelated project identifiers. - Keep unavailable workspace selections in the non-retryable failure state. Adding project permissions cannot repair these selections. - Add real database regressions for project moves, pending and applied repairs, stale revisions, archived pending selections, and foreign-company workspaces. - Update the recovery contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red-green regression with the real issue update service and execution access check. - Focused tests: 17 tests passed across `agent-project-access.test.ts` and `task-interruption-presentation.test.ts` after rebasing on current master. - Browser: the retained source stays blocked when the task project is allowed. Manage project access opens Permissions / Trust with Allowed projects and Add project. - The normal workspace API accepted an allowed pending selection. Returning to the task showed “Project access is ready” and Retry. Permissions and run count did not change. - Full repository typecheck and build passed before the final presentation adjustment. The final adjustment passed server typecheck, server build, and all 17 focused tests. The stale, archived, and foreign-workspace cases failed before this adjustment. Map and module-boundary checks passed. - Browser: an archived pending workspace shows the existing failure notice without Retry or a project-permission action. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after 15 native runtime database tests failed because embedded PostgreSQL could not initialize on this host. The focused database tests passed on isolated PostgreSQL 18 in Docker. All technical CI checks passed on `a6e9f977`. Fresh CI and review are required for the presentation adjustment. One Runner shard passed on its single rerun after a provider shutdown failure. A fresh local Runner build also passed that case and its reuse sibling. The prior Paperclip Review could not publish its assessment. Its saved presentation finding is addressed. Merge waits for a fresh published review and all checks on the current head. ## Risks - Presentation must follow workspace selection precedence. Tests cover retained bindings, valid pending changes, stale changes, and company isolation. - This adds at most three bounded reads for tasks with a project access failure. It adds no reads for this purpose on unaffected tasks. - Dispatch remains the authorization authority. This change does not grant access, move files, or start execution. No migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The exact serving model identifier and context window were 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>	2026-10-26 07:30:27 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d0c8f0b090	fix: explain project access denials and add an authorized repair path (#17509) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust agents may read only the projects in their allowed scope. > - Workspace setup correctly stops a task outside that scope. > - The task previously showed a generic failure, and agent settings did not offer an additive repair. > - This pull request explains the denial and lets authorized operators add projects while preserving other restrictions. > - The saved task then offers an explicit retry. Saving access does not start work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A project access denial appeared as an ordinary failed attempt. Operators could not add a second allowed project from agent settings. **Expected behavior** The task should explain the denied access and link to a working permission editor. The editor should preserve existing scope and restrictions, enforce operator authority, and retain drafts after a failed save. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a low-trust agent to a task whose project is outside its allowed projects. 2. Let workspace setup deny project access. 3. Open the task, follow Manage project access, add the project, save, reload, and return to the task. 4. Confirm that the saved message remains and Retry task is a separate action. ## What Changed - Record a typed, non-retryable project denial before provider dispatch. Project denials do not enter automatic continuation or provider comment policy. - Project current and historical setup denials into a safe task notice. Keep unrelated failures, prior assignees, and approval/pause/budget gates separate. Recheck current project authority, including standard trust and root-issue grants. Accepted retries keep their working state. - Add board-only project-access reads and additive saves under the agent row lock. Enforce company scope, agent-management authority, pending-approval restrictions, and an audit record for new additions. - Add the production notice and searchable multi-project editor, including read-only, saving, cancellation, and failed-save states. Preserve the return-to-task query through canonical agent redirects. - Register board-only project-access routes in OpenAPI with a strict request schema. - Add production Storybook examples and API/persistence/concurrency regressions. Retain the approved design snapshot and update the behavior maps and implementation contract. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm build-storybook`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`. - Passed: 11 permission/projection tests and 30 run-completion tests against an isolated PostgreSQL database. These cover historical failures, concurrent additions, idempotent audit, preserved restrictions, foreign projects, read-only users, agent self-grants, and no automatic wakeup. - Passed: all 27 OpenAPI route tests, including route coverage and the new board-only request/response contract. - Browser: the real app displayed a historical denial; Manage project access opened the editor; saving retained the original project and survived reload; Return to task showed the ready notice. Saving created one audit event and zero runs. Explicit Retry returned 202 and reached the separate sandbox requirement, which remained enforced. No external provider was used. - All five production Storybook interaction checks pass: blocked task, save, cancellation, failed-save recovery, and read-only settings. These use fixture callbacks; durable authorization is covered separately above. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted locally but stopped after repeated embedded PostgreSQL startup failures caused by macOS semaphore exhaustion. Full-suite CI is required before merge. The separate UI suite passed all 9,095 tests. The 41 focused server regressions also passed after rebasing onto the latest master. A further 26 recovery-classification tests pass, including a red-to-green regression for automatic continuation after a project denial. ## Risks - No schema migration. The new endpoint only adds same-company project IDs and preserves the rest of the stored policy. - The historical notice recognizes one exact setup denial message. It does not display arbitrary run errors or disclose a different source project's identity. - The retry still passes all current admission and isolation checks. The notice does not promise that other execution requirements are satisfied. - Related open work: #13309 covers inherited secret restrictions; #11234 covers the broader repository catalog. This change does not replace either policy surface. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code execution and browser tools. The precise runtime model ID and context-window size were 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 #` 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 (focused server and full UI suites; full-suite infrastructure limit above) - [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>	2026-10-24 16:16:29 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	d33b40a5c3	fix: recover saved work and provide reliable task Retry (#16965) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must retain work when an execution or workspace export fails. > - Retained-workspace holds can leave saved input waiting with no usable Retry action. > - Users cannot verify process ownership or repair provider allocations. > - This pull request gives system recovery a durable budget and gives each deliberate Retry a durable intent. > - Safe recovery can preserve files, settle an accepted result, or prepare an independent workspace. > - One task state keeps infrastructure diagnostics out of the ordinary conversation while preserving real permission and approval gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a retained workspace can show recovery, failed-run and saved-message warnings at the same time. Historical runs without native workspace descriptors cannot use the native restore path. Old recovery metadata can prevent a new attempt even when an independent workspace would be safe. **Expected behavior** Paperclip owns bounded infrastructure retries and file preservation. A user can request another attempt with ordinary Retry. Thinking appears immediately. The service preserves completed effects and current user controls. It does not claim that starting fresh recovered the old files. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a failed run and its workspace after export or process-stop failure. 2. Save a follow-up while the recovery hold is active. 3. Open the task and try to continue without infrastructure credentials or operator certification. Refs #16906, #16835, #16883. This extends their recovery and receipt contracts. Related work: #16962 and #16963. ## What Changed - Add task-level Retry with company-scoped authorization, all-status idempotency and durable admission before physical work. Keep exact-run Retry compatible. - Add typed recovery phases, finite persisted backoff, historical adoption and durable local failure diagnostics. - Preserve native workspaces or verified historical snapshots. Admit an independent fresh workspace only after execution containment. Keep old-source preservation and cleanup obligations separate. - Carry completed publication and API receipts forward. Fence uncertain mutation retries across replacement runs. Preserve connected-chat identity and authorization. - Re-enter normal dispatch for saved input. Reuse accepted results through the existing finalizer. - Use one task interruption projection across the thread, composer and task list. Show optimistic Thinking, ordinary Retry and genuine user gates. - Add PostgreSQL, filesystem, API, browser-fixture and controlled provider coverage. Document the behavior and update the feature/access maps. ## Verification - All GitHub Actions CI jobs pass on `6d8c6d27d50586d8548b31d03b47f6d73a0ee11d`: typecheck, all server/chat/workspace and serialized suites, Runner checks, eight browser shards, canary and build. The required merge gate passes. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. Its two earlier P1 findings are fixed. - Full recursive typecheck and build pass locally on the final commit. All 16 task Retry cases pass against isolated real PostgreSQL. The unrelated-success case and both stale Retry cases fail on the previous code and pass after the fix. - The corrected gateway fixture passes its uncertain-mutation and independent-read case. Four real HTTP API cases pass for definite 403/422 rejection, completed-effect reuse, and uncertain-effect fences across deliberate and automatic retries. These focused gateway/API checks used a temporary database lifecycle harness on an existing healthy local PostgreSQL process. The standard repository helper is unchanged. - Earlier qualification covers 291 task UI cases, saved-file copyback and ancestry, current Agent Chat ownership races, nine chat Retry API browser cases, and six assembled browser recovery fixtures. A real API/PostgreSQL/native-runner journey showed Thinking in 25 ms despite a delayed response, admitted one successor in a separate workspace, retained original files, and survived reload. - The controlled Daytona test interrupts export, joins the controller, restarts it in a separate process, and verifies one agent start, one external sentinel operation, retained file contents and no premature cleanup. It does not establish abrupt-kill or live LLM/GitHub acceptance. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and was not green: an OAuth row-lock timing assertion failed, and a later suite exhausted macOS PostgreSQL semaphores. The ten OAuth timing cases passed on rerun against a separate database. Later embedded database initialization failures remain recorded; the final CI matrix passes. - Security scanning passed on production-code commit `63953edf069b111c6becc3144dffa6deb52f68b5`. Its only successor changes one test-fixture identity line. The final scan is neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. Both rerun API requests returned 404, so no fresh successful scan is claimed. Socket and Snyk checks pass on the final head. - The optional Paperclip Review remains queued behind an earlier run in workspace finalization. Its prior completed assessment was incomplete because a comparison tool was blocked by the platform filter. It is not counted as a completed code review. GitHub does not require this check for merge. - Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment. Local and CI results do not establish recovery of a hosted task or its retained files. ## Risks - Recovery changes span admission, physical ownership and dispatch. Incorrect evidence could permit overlapping work. Existing physical locks and authoritative stop requirements remain in place. - The migration adds concurrent indexes. It requires the existing top-level migration runner and retries incomplete index creation safely. - A fresh attempt can complete while old-source preservation remains unresolved. The service retains that obligation and does not report those files as recovered. - Unknown tool mutations remain blocked until their authoritative receipt owner resolves them. Generic upstream tools have no universal result-query protocol. - Recovery and diagnostics stay inside the stack. No Cloud incident endpoint, notification worker or new outbound reporting channel is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell execution, source editing and browser tools. No model subagents were used for this implementation. ## 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 (focused suites; the full local run limitation is documented above) - [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>	2026-10-20 19:58:53 -05:00