mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 11:01:16 +01:00
c1c46f1e4eb22aaa08c4a9567fafe905db5a2284
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
0a511ed1b0 |
feat(apps): support multiple provider connections (#11060)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Apps subsystem connects company tools through governed provider connections. > - A company can need more than one account for the same provider. > - The current database constraint and Apps flow assume one named connection per company. > - New quarantined actions also need an explicit review decision before activation. > - This pull request supports multiple provider connections and complete action review decisions. > - The benefit is safer access control and a clear multi-account Apps workflow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #11040 **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This change affects the Apps UI, the tool access API, the shared request contract, and the database schema. **Problem or motivation** The connection name constraint prevents a company from keeping more than one connection for a provider. The Apps UI also reuses an existing OAuth connection when a user asks to connect another account. Action review can enable selected entries without recording a decision for every quarantined action. **Proposed solution** Remove the company and connection name uniqueness constraint. Let users open, count, edit, and create multiple provider connections. Require the finish request to cover every quarantined action exactly once before the server activates reviewed entries. **Alternatives considered** The UI could generate unique internal names and keep the database constraint. This would preserve a one-connection assumption in the data model and would make display names part of identity. The server could also infer review decisions from enabled actions. This would not distinguish a reviewed disabled action from an action that the user did not review. **Roadmap alignment** This change extends the completed MCP Tool Gateway and Apps milestone. It also supports the Connected Apps roadmap item. It follows the navigation and connection management work in #11040. ## What Changed - Remove the company-scoped connection name uniqueness index with an ordered and idempotent migration. - Add a reviewed action list to the finish-app contract and reject incomplete or duplicate review decisions. - Activate reviewed entries and keep unreviewed quarantined entries blocked. - Enable a completed connection and preserve the company and connection scope in all updates. - Show provider connection counts and open the provider setup page from Browse. - Let users edit existing connections or connect another account without reusing an active OAuth connection. - Update focused server and UI coverage for multiple connections and action review. ## Verification - Ran the focused Apps UI suite. All 116 tests passed in 11 files. - Ran the focused server and CLI suite. All 276 tests passed in 3 files. - Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`. The migration safety check passed. - Ran `pnpm -r typecheck`. All projects passed. - Ran `pnpm build`. All projects built successfully. - Ran `pnpm test:run`. It passed 3,735 tests and skipped 4 tests. One worktree-safety assertion failed because the execution workspace reloads its worktree marker. The same test passed with an isolated non-worktree marker. - Ran `pnpm check:token-gates`. It reports 12 existing violations in the unchanged `PaperclipOrbit3D.tsx` file from the target branch. - Started the six affected Playwright specifications. Chromium could not start because the host does not provide `libatk-1.0.so.0`. The GitHub e2e jobs will verify these specifications. - GitHub Actions passed every final-head CI gate, including all three e2e shards and the aggregate `e2e` and `verify` jobs. - Greptile reviewed final commit `9af9200426` at 5/5 with zero review threads. ## Risks - Removing the name uniqueness index permits duplicate display names. Stable connection IDs and UIDs remain unique within a company. - The finish-app endpoint accepts the new review field as optional for backward compatibility. When clients send it, the server requires a complete decision for all quarantined actions. - Multiple OAuth connections depend on the explicit new-connection route flag. Focused tests cover active and draft connection reuse. - The migration is ordered after migration 0210. Its `DROP INDEX IF EXISTS` statement is safe to repeat. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with the `gpt-5.6-sol` model assisted this change. The agent used repository tools, code execution, test execution, and agentic reasoning. The Codex runtime manages the context window. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cac3c0fa1a |
feat(connections): add runtime subjects and grants (#9982)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Connections is the subsystem that lets operators connect external apps and govern which subjects may use those credentials > - #9958 established the v3 schema foundation and #9981 adds the AppDefinition catalog layer > - The runtime still needs subject-aware authorization state, scoped key handling, and API/OpenAPI routes so connected apps can actually be granted and used safely > - This pull request adds the runtime grants/authorization behavior on top of the catalog branch, while keeping unrelated dependency and workflow sync commits out of the stack > - The benefit is a reviewable runtime layer that can land after the catalog PR, then unblock the wizard and orchestrator cutover work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9958 and #9981. Refs #9981. No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the runtime layer for the Connections v3 stack and is rebased onto `master` after #9981 landed. ## What Changed - Adds the connection user authorization state migration and schema wiring. - Adds shared runtime subject/grant types and validators. - Adds runtime grant and scoped key behavior in the tool-access service. - Adds runtime route coverage and registers the routes in OpenAPI. - Replays only the Connections runtime commits on top of the catalog branch, dropping unrelated sync/dependency history from the prior closed runtime PR. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium: runtime grant enforcement is security-sensitive and must fail closed for unknown key scopes. - Migration ordering depends on the schema and catalog layers already merged through #9958 and #9981. - This PR is rebased and retargeted to `master` with runtime-only commits. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7e00f67138 |
feat(connections): add v3 schema core (#9958)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their governed access to external systems. > - Connected Apps build on the existing Apps and MCP gateway substrate so companies can configure reusable, auditable integrations. > - The current connection record does not yet have a stable public address, explicit ownership/auth method fields, or subject-specific credential grants. > - Without that schema core, later OAuth, per-user authorization, token brokering, triggers, and connector-service phases cannot enforce tenant and subject boundaries consistently. > - This pull request adds the forward-compatible Connections v3 schema core while preserving the existing connection lifecycle and directly migrating the remote MCP transport name. > - The benefit is a company-scoped, least-privilege foundation for one-click integrations without bypassing Paperclip secrets, profiles, rules, or audit controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public issue was found. **Problem** Paperclip's current app connections need a durable identity and authorization substrate before Connected Apps can safely support multiple setup methods, per-user credentials, provider tenants, and managed connector services. The existing schema only models a single connection-level credential set and uses legacy transport terminology. **Proposed solution** Add a stable company-scoped connection UID, explicit ownership/auth/transport fields, a subject-aware `connection_grants` table, and multi-key credential annotations. Backfill existing connections and workspace grants in a reversible migration, then update shared/server/UI contracts to the new `mcp_remote` transport name. **Related work** - Related foundation: #9534 - Roadmap: Connected Apps (one-click integrations) ## What Changed - Added company-scoped connection `uid`, `ownership`, `authKind`, and canonical transport fields across database, shared contracts, validators, services, and UI fixtures. - Added `connection_grants` with workspace/user subject rules, provider tenant metadata, credential secret refs, revocation state, company scoping, and uniqueness constraints. - Added migration `0182_connections_v3_schema_core` to backfill stable UIDs, rename `remote_http` to `mcp_remote`, infer auth kinds, create default workspace grants, and support rollback coverage. - Added multi-key credential annotations and updated gateway/access services without changing the existing lifecycle behavior. - Updated the connection glossary, connector playbook, and security threat model for the new identity, grant, and relay boundaries. - Added explicit test UIDs to direct database fixtures so the new non-null invariant is exercised across affected server suites. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-oauth-legacy-backfill.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-policy-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-mcp-servers.test.ts packages/db/src/connections-v3-schema-core-migration.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` — 9 files, 218 tests passed. - Latest-head GitHub Actions: build, typecheck, general/serialized suites, backup/worktree restore coverage, both e2e shards, canary, policy, and security scans pass. - Greptile: 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - `pnpm check:token-gates` remains red only on five pre-existing `#9627` color literals outside this change. ## Risks - **Migration risk:** UID backfill and default-grant creation touch every existing connection. The migration uses company-scoped uniqueness, deterministic legacy UIDs with ID suffixes, and seeded up/rollback coverage. - **Authorization risk:** Grant rows carry credential references. Constraints enforce workspace-vs-user subject shape, company/connection lookup indexes, one default grant per connection, and one user grant per connection/subject. Security review is requested specifically for this design. - **Compatibility risk:** `remote_http` is renamed directly to `mcp_remote`; all repository call sites and fixtures are updated in the same change. - **Future-phase risk:** Subject-bound token issuance, triggers, and connector-service relay verification remain fail-closed requirements documented for later phases; this PR does not expose those capabilities. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex CLI coding agent. The runtime did not expose an exact underlying model ID or context-window size; capabilities used include repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, test execution, Git/GitHub CLI operations, and structured reasoning. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1de0a3bb1e |
feat(mcp) [split 2/8]: add governed access contracts (#9557)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 2/8 and focuses on database schema and shared governance contracts > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The governed access model needs additive persistence and synchronized shared types before server enforcement can compile. - Proposed solution: Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/01-demo-servers`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: QA for migrations/validators; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds migrations 0148–0169, tool-access and Smoke Lab schema, shared types/validators/gallery helpers, and the minimal compile-required contract consumers identified by boundary testing. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db test` — passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared test` — passed ## Risks - Migration or contract mistakes could affect every upper layer; all migrations are additive/idempotent and compile consumers are included in this boundary. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [x] My branch name describes the change 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |