2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	aa8fc86331	feat(connections): prefer native apps and ask users to choose external providers (#13941) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connections give agents governed access to external services. > - Native connections should remain the first choice for a supported app. > - Other apps may be available through an external MCP provider. > - The user must know which external provider handles the connection and choose it before setup. > - This pull request adds ranked alternatives and server-authored instructions to connection search. > - Agents can follow the returned instructions while Paperclip validates saved choices and access. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13879, which fixed inline MCP provider setup. This PR adds discovery and provider selection on top of that work. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: shared connection contracts, server search and intent services, native runtime, CLI, inline setup UI, and evals. **Problem or motivation** An agent cannot offer a clear external-provider choice when Paperclip has no native connection for an app. Adding provider-specific branches to the core prompt would make those instructions harder to maintain. **Proposed solution** Prefer a native connection. Otherwise return verified alternatives in Composio, Arcade, Executor, Zapier order. Include an external-service disclosure, a question with None, and the next instruction in the search result. Validate the saved human choice before creating a selected fallback setup card. Reuse existing provider accounts and verify underlying app access separately. **Alternatives considered** Do not silently choose a provider. Do not claim that broad execution tools prove support for every app. Reuse existing questions and connection intents rather than add another connection model. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the existing MCP Tool Gateway & Apps and Agent evals & feedback capabilities. The MCP aggregators experiment remains the gate. No duplicate provider-routing PR was found in the public search. ## What Changed - Add a dated support index and authorized cached-tool evidence for external routes. - Return provider questions and next-step instructions from `connections_search`. - Preserve pending choices and declines across continuation. Validate company, task, agent, human, app, and current route eligibility. - Carry the selected app into new setup and account reuse, validate explicit provider requests against persisted human messages, and distinguish provider readiness from app authorization. - Sync native, MCP, REST, and CLI contracts. Keep core agent instructions provider-neutral. - Add production-component Storybooks, focused database tests, and three real-agent browser eval cases. - Record the plan, observed failures, fixes, passing evidence, and acceptance limits. ## Verification - Latest head `586f0e6cd`: 54 checks passed, 2 skipped; Greptile 5/5 and all review threads resolved. - After rebasing on master `18dac1e1e`: 64 focused shared, validator, route-contract, and database tests passed; server typecheck passed. - Embedded-browser test drive on the rebased head: native Jira card, HubSpot external-provider question, Arcade account reuse, one actual MCP read against a local synthetic fixture, reload persistence, and None preventing further calls. A real OpenAI-backed agent performed discovery and continuation. - UX observation: the agent initially combined mutually exclusive request fields; the server rejected it and the agent recovered without changing access. This extra retry remains visible in the transcript. - After rebase: 23 focused eval grader/catalog tests, affected TypeScript checks, token gates, production UI build, and Storybook build passed. Full local tests are intentionally excluded at the maintainer's request. - Before rebase: four browser/real-agent attempts passed: native Jira, None, and reuse of the second provider on two Codex profiles. - Browser evals used an isolated deterministic MCP fixture through the real Paperclip gateway. They do not prove production compatibility with all four providers. - Review `Apps / Connections / Provider choice` in Storybook. Choose Arcade, continue through Access, and verify the app name, external-service disclosure, and URL configuration. - The detailed verification report is `doc/connections/2026-09-23-aggregator-routing-verification.md`. ## Risks - The public support index is finite and can age. Account capability and app authorization still require verification after selection. - Existing installed-tool permissions remain in effect. Provider choice is not a new execution permission boundary. An early Mini attempt skipped search; clearer provider-neutral instructions made the targeted rerun pass. This is not a measured reliability rate. - Explicit requests skip provider confirmation only when a clear persisted human message or saved provider choice supports them. Other phrasing falls back to confirmation; the agent query alone is not consent. These routes do not add tool permissions. - No database migration or legacy Composio broker is added. Real-provider acceptance remains separate from fixture proof. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser tools. The exact deployment variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Product evals separately used the repository's primary Codex and Codex Mini profiles; those agents supplied test behavior, not independent provider compatibility proof. ## 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>	2026-09-24 16:36:49 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	b3343dbd64	feat(connections): add self-serve intent runtime (#12345) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need a governed way to request app connections during issue work. > - The catalog now describes the available providers and setup methods. > - A request must become a durable, company-scoped intent before an operator acts on it. > - This pull request adds that intent runtime across server, agent, CLI, and shared contracts. > - The benefit is a safe bridge from agent need to operator-approved setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 7 of 11. It depends on stack 6 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add connection intent types, validation, service logic, and routes. - Add agent runtime tools and CLI support for connection requests. - Add issue-thread interaction support for connection intents. - Add runtime, route, adapter, and contract tests. - Hold the final resolved-continuation row lock through asynchronous adapter preparation until an actual process spawn, so parking or reassignment cannot cross that boundary. - Report Hermes Gateway's first remote run request through the shared dispatch hook so the resolved-intent lock is released at the true dispatch boundary. - Revalidate the addressed user's live non-viewer membership and connection-management authority for every intent mutation, including OAuth completion. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 176 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` (32 passed; includes non-process dispatch lock-release coverage) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts -t "addressed-user mutation"` (1 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t "binds OAuth callback completion to the initiating board session"` (1 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter test -- src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` (23 passed; includes dispatch-hook ordering and exactly-once coverage) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter typecheck` ## Risks - A malformed intent could create an unusable operator request. - Validators and company checks reject invalid or cross-company requests. - The final continuation gate holds the issue row lock through adapter preparation until process or remote dispatch; later operator changes use the normal active-run interruption path. - The change does not add a database migration. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, 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 linked the public source pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [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 - [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>	2026-08-29 12:08:34 -05:00