mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-25 09:41:04 +01:00
c998a57b425fdcbcbf8a14b95c8eca17b0cc367f
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
d9d2147171 |
fix(auth): keep Cloud tenants on the Cloud sign-in flow (#14407)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud owns human identity and passes a verified identity to each tenant. > - The tenant can report no session while the Cloud session is still valid. > - The access gate and direct `/auth` route then show the instance password form. > - This pull request sends those users through the configured Cloud entry endpoint. > - Cloud can renew the tenant session or show its login page, then return to the original task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A Cloud tenant can display the self-hosted email/password form after an instance session check returns no session. This gives Cloud users the wrong login method. **Expected behavior** An active Cloud session renews tenant access automatically. A signed-out user signs in through Cloud. Staging and production use their own configured Cloud origins. Self-hosted instances keep their instance login form. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Cloud tenant task or an `/auth?next=...` link. 2. Keep the Cloud session active but make the instance session check return 401. 3. Observe the instance password form instead of Cloud session recovery. **Deployment mode** Cloud-managed authenticated instances. No database or server API changes. Searched related authentication PRs. Native self-hosted OIDC support in #10411 is a separate feature; this change uses the existing Cloud entry contract. ## What Changed - Wait for deployment metadata before showing an instance login form. - Use the health response's Cloud origin and stack slug for session recovery. - Preserve the tenant path, query, and fragment. Reject external and recursive login return targets. - Limit automatic recovery per tab. Show a manual Cloud retry after failed recovery. Show service failures as errors. - Keep self-hosted login and local trusted access. Add focused tests, browser regressions, deployment documentation, and an unavailable-state design example. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - UI typecheck and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed after the final UI edits. - All UI tests passed: 639 files, 6,777 tests. - 63 focused Vitest tests passed across Auth, CloudAccessGate, Cloud links, and recovery coordination. - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/cloud-auth.spec.ts`: 5 passed. The tests use the real tenant UI and database with a simulated Cloud HTTP endpoint. They cover both Cloud origins, direct auth/task links, no password-form flash, preserved URLs, reload, and self-hosted login. - Hands-on browser test used the real Cloud gateway and a fresh tenant build with disposable local data. Active Cloud session plus a forced missing instance session returned to the task. An expired tenant cookie also renewed automatically and returned to the task. Removing both sessions reached the real Cloud email/social login UI. Persistent failure stopped at the retry screen; retry succeeded after removing the injected fault. The fixture used a loopback transport adapter and a simulated signed-out OIDC issuer. No production session or deployment was changed. - The default local browser startup hit the host's embedded PostgreSQL resource limit. The passing run used a separate disposable database on the test PostgreSQL process. - The full local `pnpm test:run` sweep was stopped after about 31 minutes once CI completed the full suite. It had reported 33 failures in the unchanged runner API unit/integration files; both files pass in isolation (1,749 + 28 tests). The local sweep did not reach the later workspace/serialized groups. CI completed all of those groups successfully. - Greptile reviewed commit `d603fd4e39455de44da9dae81b72197096c0e1e8` at 5/5 with its only thread resolved. All CI gates are green on this commit, including all general/serialized server groups, workspace tests, Runner checks, typecheck, build, and all eight browser shards ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36446230697)). ## Risks - Recovery depends on valid Cloud origin and stack metadata. Incomplete metadata shows an unavailable message instead of a password form. - Browsers with session storage disabled use the manual Cloud link, since automatic retries cannot be bounded across documents. - The external identity provider's email/social login was not completed in this local test. Existing Cloud authentication owns that flow. - No migration, credential format, membership rule, or production deployment changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact served variant and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. ## 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 - [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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
7f3c06dac4 |
refactor(ui): remove the legacy Cloud organization switcher (#14061)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its sidebar provides navigation between organizations. > - The generic organization switcher slot lets installed plugins own that navigation. > - Both Core UI shells still contain the old Cloud portfolio menu. > - Cloud now uses its private Account plugin for this menu. > - This pull request removes the duplicate Cloud menu and keeps the built-in company menu. > - This reduces Cloud-specific code without changing the plugin host contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13832 and #13854. Related #14060 changes the account popup, not this organization switcher. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Organization navigation in both sidebar shells. **Current behavior** Core retains Cloud portfolio fetching, stack rows and stack-entry links behind the plugin replacement slot. **Proposed behavior** The installed switcher plugin owns Cloud navigation. Core lists local companies when no usable replacement exists. The Members-page Cloud invitation action keeps its existing portfolio API; it is a live caller, not an old-image fallback. ## What Changed - Remove Cloud portfolio queries, stack rendering and Cloud creation/entry branches from both built-in menus. - Remove the unused stack-entry URL helper. - Keep company selection, ordering, invitations, logout and plugin error handling. Hide local company creation on managed hosts, where the server forbids it. - Update switcher tests and the navigation contract. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed, including Rust checks with the installed Cargo toolchain on PATH. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui`: 637 files and 6,727 tests passed. - Focused switcher, plugin host and Cloud link tests: 26 passed after the managed-host creation guard. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Full `pnpm test:run` was attempted, then stopped after failures in unchanged server tests. Targeted reproduction found an ancestor skills-directory collision for Slack and macOS EACCES errors renaming the company skills cache. Other local failures appeared in email connector skill setup and a process-turn test. This is not a local full-suite pass; clean Linux CI covers the complete suite. - Full `pnpm build`, UI production build and Storybook build passed. All [latest-head CI checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36201814444) passed, including the full Linux test matrix, browser tests, typecheck, build and release checks. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments. ## Risks - A managed host without a usable switcher plugin now gets the ordinary company menu. It no longer gets the old Cloud portfolio menu, and local company creation remains unavailable there. - The Cloud portfolio endpoint remains required by the Members-page invitation action. This PR does not remove that live endpoint or change its authorization. - No database, authentication, plugin protocol or deployment changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed by 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
c341588bdb |
fix(ui): add Cloud invitations to the Members page (#13922)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People manage collaborators from the Members page. > - Cloud manages invitations outside the tenant's local invitation system. > - The local Invites tab is hidden on Cloud, so this page has no way to invite a person. > - This pull request adds an Invite people action for the current Cloud stack's owner or admin. > - The action opens the existing Cloud People settings for that stack. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A Cloud owner opens Organization Settings → Members and finds no invitation action. The tenant-local Invites tab is hidden, and the page does not link to Cloud's invitation flow. **Expected behavior** Cloud owners and admins can start an invitation from Members. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in to a Cloud-managed instance as the current stack's owner or admin. 2. Open Organization Settings → Members with `company.invites` hidden. 3. Look for an invitation action beside the page heading. **Paperclip version or commit** `7b7c4d4172d6aac14919e2682b702ae87bc17653`. **Deployment mode** Cloud-managed, authenticated. Related search: #2388 proposes broader member-management UI. This change only connects the existing Members page to Cloud invitations. No duplicate Cloud invitation action PR was found. ## What Changed - Add **Invite people** beside the Members heading for the current Cloud stack's owner/admin. - Read the role from the authenticated Cloud portfolio. Ownership of another stack does not enable the action. - Navigate to the current stack's People settings on the configured Cloud origin. Keep the local Invites tab hidden when configured. - Cover allowed roles, denied roles, loading, failed refresh, missing configuration, current-stack selection, and self-hosted behavior. Document the navigation contract. ## Verification - Focused Members and Cloud link tests: 23 passed. - Full UI suite: 6,669 passed across 634 files. - UI typecheck and `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - All PR CI checks passed, including the full general, serialized, browser, and runner test jobs. The duplicate local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI completed; it is not reported as a local pass. - Manual acceptance after tenant rollout: an owner/admin opens Members, selects **Invite people**, and reaches the same stack's Cloud People settings. A member does not see the action. ## Risks - The action needs a tenant app update before it appears on an existing stack. - The portfolio request must identify the current stack and its role. The action stays hidden when that information is unavailable or the request fails. - Cloud rechecks invitation authorization at the destination. No schema, API, or invitation-acceptance behavior changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, code execution, and repository tools. The session does not expose a more specific model identifier or context-window size. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
64faf0ae90 |
fix(ui): leave the archived company's settings after archiving it (#13846)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A person can archive a company from that company's settings page. > - After the archive, the page stays on the archived company. The only visible change is the button text "Already archived". > - It is unclear that anything happened, and the user has no next step on screen. > - This pull request navigates away after a successful archive: to another active company, to the Cloud portfolio when no active company remains on a managed instance, or to the companies list when self-hosted. > - The benefit is a clear outcome: the user sees where they are now and a toast that names what happened. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. Description follows the enhancement template: **What existing behavior does this improve?** The archive action on the company settings page. The mutation works, but the view stays on the archived company and gives no feedback beyond a disabled button. **Subsystem affected** UI: company settings page, company selection helpers, cloud links. **Current behavior** Archive succeeds. The button changes to "Already archived". The user stays on the archived company's settings. On a single-company instance nothing else changes. **Proposed behavior** After a successful archive, the app departs: another active company's dashboard with a toast; the Cloud portfolio's manage view when no active company remains on a managed instance; the companies list when self-hosted with nothing active, because that list shows the archived state and owns the unarchive action. **Reason and benefit** Staying on the archived company reads as "nothing happened". Leaving to a live surface makes the outcome clear and gives the user their next step. ## What Changed - `ui/src/lib/company-selection.ts`: new pure `resolveCompanyArchiveDeparture` helper. Another active company wins; the just-archived company is excluded by id, so a stale cached status cannot select it. Cloud portfolio is the fallback on managed instances; the companies list is the final fallback. - `ui/src/lib/cloudLinks.ts`: new `cloudPortfolioManageUrl` (`/orgs?manage=1`). The manage view matters: the plain launchpad auto-forwards a solo user back into their one openable stack — the page this navigation is escaping. - `ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.tsx`: the archive mutation now departs on success — toast + `navigate` for in-app destinations, a top-level navigation for the Cloud portfolio — instead of only setting the selected company id. - `ui/src/pages/CompanySettingsRenameHint.test.tsx`: render harness wraps the page in a `MemoryRouter` for the new router dependency. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/lib/company-selection.test.ts src/lib/cloudLinks.test.ts src/pages/CompanySettingsRenameHint.test.tsx src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx` — 22 tests pass. - New unit tests cover: active sibling wins (also on cloud), the just-archived company is never the destination even with a stale cached status, cloud portfolio fallback, self-hosted companies-list fallback, and the portfolio URL helper (null base included). - `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit` in `ui/` is clean after the plugin SDK build. ## Risks - Low risk. The archive API call is unchanged; only post-success navigation is new. The toast uses the optional actions hook, so surfaces without a ToastProvider stay safe. - On Cloud, the portfolio navigation is a full top-level navigation, so the query-cache invalidation for the departed document is skipped intentionally. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), via Claude Code CLI, extended thinking and tool use 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] 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5858ccb981 |
feat: make in-app features cloud-aware (#10850)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators use the same board application in self-hosted and Paperclip Cloud deployments. > - A Cloud tenant contains one company, so an in-app company switch does not change the active Cloud stack. > - Cloud operators need the sidebar and company surfaces to use the signed-in user's stack portfolio. > - The server must derive Cloud identity and links from trusted instance context instead of client input. > - This pull request adds canonical Cloud context, a trusted stack portfolio proxy, and Cloud-aware navigation. > - The benefit is consistent stack switching on Cloud while self-hosted company behavior stays unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server REST routes and the React board UI. **Problem or motivation** A Cloud-managed instance contains one company. The existing company switcher could only switch records inside that tenant. It could not move the operator to another Cloud stack. The existing header also gave long organization names too little width. **Proposed solution** Expose a canonical public Cloud context in health data. Add a trusted server proxy for the current user's stack portfolio. Use that data in the board UI to switch stacks with top-level navigation. Keep the existing company behavior on self-hosted instances. Move search into the navigation and keep long organization names inside the sidebar panel. **Alternatives considered** An in-app `/stacks` route was rejected because Cloud tenant hosts reserve that path and stack selection must wake or authenticate another tenant. Client-supplied user identity was rejected because the server can derive the trusted Cloud actor. **Roadmap alignment** This change advances the Cloud deployments milestone. It keeps the product local-first and Cloud-ready without changing the self-hosted mental model. ## What Changed - Added canonical Cloud instance context and public health metadata. - Added a Cloud-only stack portfolio proxy with trusted actor forwarding and per-user caching. - Prevented normal company creation on Cloud-managed instances. - Switched the sidebar and Companies page from company actions to stack actions on Cloud. - Added full-page stack navigation and Cloud create-stack links. - Moved search into the sidebar navigation so the organization name keeps more width. - Added truncation and hover recovery for long organization and stack names. - Added server and UI regression coverage for Cloud and self-hosted behavior. - Updated the implementation specification for the Cloud contracts. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passed. All three token gates are clean. - `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/__tests__/health.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-instance.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/company-cloud-floor.test.ts src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts` passed: 5 files and 66 tests. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx` passed: 1 file and 11 tests. - Pre-PR QA report `7da87ca7` passed all 8 acceptance criteria with real HTTP route factories and real Chromium screenshots in Cloud and self-hosted modes. - Security reviews passed for the canonical Cloud context and stack portfolio proxy. ## Risks - Cloud stack switching depends on the configured Cloud application and tenant portfolio URLs. - The new health `cloud` block is public by design, but it contains only canonical public instance metadata. - The stack proxy fails closed on self-hosted instances and derives the user identity from the trusted actor. - Self-hosted navigation and company creation retain their existing paths and behavior. > 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, model `gpt-5`. The run used reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. The deployment did not expose its context-window size. ## 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> |