2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5	f9d366acdf	fix(runner): require a managed AI connection for plugin Runner-task environments (#19341) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A plugin can provide Runner execution through an environment driver that declares `supportsTasks: true`. Agent computers use this path. > - Core let an agent without a managed AI connection run on that path. The run then used the account that was installed on the plugin's execution host. > - That is not a supported credential source. When the host Runner did not match, the run failed three times, 30 seconds apart, and then blocked the task with a generic error. The error did not name the fix. > - The plugin cannot refuse these runs itself. `describe` has no connection data, and Core replaces plugin error text before the user sees it. > - This pull request makes a managed AI connection a requirement for every plugin Runner-task environment. Core refuses a run without one before it acquires a lease or calls the plugin. > - The benefit is one clear notice that tells the operator to choose an AI connection, and no wasted retries or plugin work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #19326. That pull request makes a Runner revision mismatch retry. It noted that runs without a managed AI connection reach the Runner check on a different path, which still blocks after 3 attempts. This pull request removes that path for plugin Runner-task environments. **Problem or motivation** A `paperclip_runner` agent with no managed AI connection can run in a plugin environment that provides Runner tasks. The run uses the account installed on the execution host. If the host Runner does not match, the native session retries 3 times and then blocks the task with "Plugin-provided Runner execution operation unavailable". The operator cannot tell what to fix. **Proposed solution** Refuse these runs in Core before any lease, plugin call, secret resolution, or provider work. Use one stable reason, `ai_connection_required`, for run admission, the setup probe, and agent verification. Show a task notice that names the fix. **Alternatives considered** A refusal in the plugin. It cannot see the connection at `describe`, which runs first. Its error text is also replaced twice before the user sees it. A new structured plugin error code would still not cover `describe`. ## What Changed - Add `server/src/services/plugin-runner-ai-connection.ts`. It holds the `ai_connection_required` code and message, the probe result, and the manifest lookup for a Runner-task driver. The lookup moves here from `agent-runner-selection.ts`, so run admission and runner selection use the same rule. - `heartbeat/execution-configuration.ts`: refuse a new `paperclip_runner` run in a Runner-task environment when it has no managed AI connection. This also applies when `homeMode: "preconfigured"` drops the connection. The run fails as `configuration_incomplete` with reason `ai_connection_required` and an action URL to the agent's runtime settings. The check runs before observability, secrets, the managed runtime, the workspace, and the lease. A resumed native run keeps its admitted contract. - `recovery/stranded-notice.ts`: add an "AI connection required" task notice. - `run-failure-report.ts`: treat this pre-dispatch refusal as an owner action, not an unexpected failure. - `adapters/registry.ts`: the unmanaged probe for a Runner-task target now returns a failed `ai_connection_required` check. It calls no task operation. Managed probes still go through `testManagedEnvironment`. - `agent-harness-verification.ts` and `agent-lifecycle/application/failure.ts`: classify the check as `ai_connection_required` with a fixed message. Verification waits for the configuration to change instead of retrying. - Docs: `PLUGIN_RUNNER_EXECUTION.md` states the requirement. `PLUGIN_ENVIRONMENT_TASKS.md` no longer mentions installed accounts. `agent-config-ui.md` notes the requirement. - Tests: the "plugin-owned account" heartbeat test described the behavior that this change removes. It now checks the assembled heartbeat refusal: no plugin call, no native boundary, no adapter, no workspace files. ## Verification - `npx vitest run` in `server/` for these files. All tests passed: - `src/__tests__/heartbeat-execution-configuration.test.ts`. New cases: refused without a connection, refused for a preconfigured home, managed passes, resumed native input passes, non-task plugin driver passes. The refused cases also check that observability, secrets, and the managed runtime did not start. - `src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts`. One test, "inherits the instance default environment across companies…", also fails on unmodified `master` in my environment. This change does not touch it, because its driver does not declare `supportsTasks`. - `src/adapters/registry.test.ts`, `src/__tests__/agent-harness-verification.test.ts`, `src/modules/agent-lifecycle/__tests__/diagnostics.test.ts`, `src/services/recovery/stranded-notice.test.ts`, and `src/services/__tests__/run-failure-report.test.ts`. - 17 more suites that use plugin Runner-task environments, with 705 tests: `plugin-runner-task.integration`, `plugin-warm-tasks.integration`, `task-creation-recovery.integration`, `native-startup-cleanup-recovery`, `environment-task-authority.integration`, `plugin-task-credential-writeback`, agent-lifecycle `lifecycle`, `setup`, and `environment-plugins`, `workspace-preparation`, `agent-runner-selection`, `agent-harness-verification-provider-api`, `agent-harness-verification-remote`, `plugin-environment-driver-seam`, `environment-task-runtime`, `agent-test-environment-routes`, and `adapter-registry`. - `pnpm typecheck` in `server/` reported no errors in the changed files. Its only errors came from sandbox-provider packages that my local install did not link. - Not run: `plugin-runner-probe.test.ts`, because it needs a Cargo build. This change does not modify `probePluginRunnerEnvironment`. Also not run: the full `pnpm test:run` and `pnpm build`. CI runs them. ## Risks - Behavior change: an agent in a plugin Runner-task environment with no managed AI connection now stops before dispatch. Before, it ran with the host's installed account. The agent's owner must choose an AI connection. This includes agents with `homeMode: "preconfigured"` in these environments. - Runs that were already admitted and resume from saved native input are not refused. They keep the earlier behavior until they finish. - The check reads the plugin manifest on each new run admission for plugin environments. This is the same lookup that runner selection already does. - This pull request and #19326 both edit `stranded-notice.ts` and `failure.ts`. The changes are additive, but whichever merges second needs a small rebase. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, in Claude Code with tool use (file edits, shell, test runs). Default context window, extended thinking on. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-11-05 14:59:40 -08:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	5a7e740d82	fix: validate managed AI accounts before verification allocation (#17384) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A saved agent must pass execution configuration checks before it can run. > - Managed AI account selection belongs to the existing company-scoped account service. > - Verification allocated its execution environment before it checked that account. > - A missing default or revoked account could create a sandbox on each retry. > - This pull request checks account selection before allocation and keeps the final check. > - Invalid account settings now fail before they cause avoidable provider work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Saved-agent lifecycle verification allocates a test execution target before `withManagedAiProbe` selects the managed AI account. An unavailable account can cause sandbox creation and cleanup on every retry. **Expected behavior** Check account compatibility, responsible-user access, default selection, grant health and agent eligibility before target allocation. Check current account access again before the real probe. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a saved OpenCode agent with an OpenRouter personal-default binding. 2. Leave that user's OpenRouter default empty, or revoke the selected grant. 3. Let lifecycle verification use a sandbox execution environment. 4. Before this change, verification can allocate the target and then reject the account. After this change, account selection rejects the configuration before allocation. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline `b5bf86ea09042a864b60910f80c8fdf7e64e9ef0`. **Deployment mode** Server with Postgres and a remote execution environment. Tests use disposable local Postgres and a controlled target allocation boundary. Searched public PRs and issues for verification, connection preflight, probes and lifecycle work. No duplicate fix found. Related public issue #16128 concerns credential probing and reauthorization. This change does not alter reauthorization or credential refresh. ## What Changed - Call the existing managed account selector with the resolved adapter and model before allocating a verification execution target. - Keep router resolution, secret handling, final account selection and target release with their existing owners. - Add six Postgres tests and document the saved-agent ordering contract. ## Verification - Focused verification suites: 30 tests passed across two files. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - Full PR CI passed on `ddc0879d46b60310c533e6d3c4b8acdd178d979c`: 54 successful checks and two expected skips. [Workflow evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40033261909). This includes typecheck, tests, build and browser checks. - Apex review: 5/5 on that exact head, clean check, no comments or unresolved threads. Merge state is clean. - Additional local `pnpm test:run` is still running. The complete local suite is not yet a pass claim. - The first focused run passed the missing-default case but failed five setup hooks because fixtures reused a unique company prefix. Each fixture now has a distinct prefix. The complete focused rerun passed. - Tests use real account selection, memberships, grants, personal defaults, encrypted fixture credentials and managed runtime preparation. Only execution-target allocation and the provider probe are controlled boundaries. No live provider request is required. - Tests prove that missing defaults, revoked grants and incompatible models do not allocate a target. A valid account still reaches the managed probe. Revocation during allocation still fails the final account check and releases the target. Probe failure also releases it. - `git diff --check`: passed. Reviewed the diff for secrets and private account data before push. - No hosted login or production deployment is claimed for this follow-up. ## Risks - Adds one read-only account selection to each managed saved-agent verification attempt. The selector can read company accounts and grants. It makes no provider request and creates no execution target. - Final selection stays fresh. A successful preflight does not reserve an account or cache authorization. - Missing configuration still follows the existing durable lifecycle retry schedule. This change prevents needless allocation; it does not remove those database retries. - No schema, scheduler, provider-account choice, capacity or public API changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools and code execution. ## 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>	2026-10-23 16:31:18 -07:00