2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	b4815bf964	Scope environment custom images to instance environments (#8850) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Environments are now managed as instance-level runtime resources rather than per-company rows > - The custom environment image setup tables were introduced with their own `company_id` columns and route query parameters > - That split made one saved environment image state depend on an extra company context even though the environment itself is the durable owner > - It also made saved-environment probes harder because applying the active custom image template could require a company context when no secret-backed config needed one > - This pull request scopes custom image templates and setup sessions directly to the saved environment > - The benefit is that reusable environment images follow the same instance-scoped model as environments while secret resolution still uses company context only when secrets require it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. Bug report: ### What happened? saved environment custom-image routes and persistence required a `companyId` even though environments are instance-scoped, and saved sandbox probes did not opt into active custom-image template application unless a company context was present. ### Expected behavior custom-image templates and setup sessions should be owned by the saved environment, and saved sandbox probes should apply the active template while still requiring a company context only for secret-backed runtime config. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure an instance-scoped sandbox environment with custom-image setup support. 2. Start or inspect a custom-image session or template for that saved environment. 3. Probe the saved environment without a custom-image-specific `companyId` query parameter. ### Paperclip version or commit current `master` after the environment custom-image template migration. ### Deployment mode Local dev (pnpm dev) or authenticated local Paperclip instance. ### Installation method Built from source (pnpm dev / pnpm build). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core bug). ### Database mode Embedded PGlite/Postgres dev database. ### Access context Board human operator. ### Privacy checklist No logs, secrets, tokens, private URLs, or local machine paths are included. Duplicate search performed: - `gh search prs "environment custom image companyId repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --state open --limit 20` - `gh search prs "custom image environment scoped repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --state open --limit 20` - `gh search issues "environment custom image repo:paperclipai/paperclip" --state open --limit 20` The returned results were unrelated adapter, Docker, auth, or stale-workspace items. ## What Changed - Removed redundant `company_id` columns from environment custom-image templates and setup sessions. - Added migration `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped` to collapse duplicate active rows per environment before dropping the old company-scoped indexes/columns. - Updated custom-image services, route handlers, shared validators, and UI API/query keys to use environment-scoped custom-image state. - Kept runtime secret resolution company-aware only when secret refs or bindings require a company context. - Made saved sandbox environment probes opt into active custom-image template application. - Updated DB, shared, server, and UI tests for the new environment-scoped contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-image-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` before rebasing onto latest `master`; after the rebase only the migration number changed, and the migration check plus focused suite, typecheck, and build were rerun. - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Migration safety: the migration supersedes duplicate active templates per environment and fails duplicate active setup sessions before adding environment-only unique indexes. Operators with duplicate historical active rows should review which active template is kept. - Behavior shift: plugin custom-image setup calls now receive `companyId: "instance"` when no secret binding determines a concrete company context. - Secret-backed configs still require an explicit or uniquely inferable company context; environments with secret bindings spread across multiple companies continue to fail fast. > 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 via the `codex_local` adapter, GPT-5-based coding model with tool-enabled repository inspection, editing, testing, git, and GitHub CLI access. Exact context-window metadata was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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>	2026-07-01 23:57:31 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	8d9f9fd240	Add reusable sandbox custom images (#8794) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A growing part of that work runs in sandboxed environments rather than on the operator's local machine. > - Today sandbox providers can start fresh workspaces and run probes, but they do not have a shared contract for capturing and reusing prepared sandbox state. > - Operators need a way to set up tools, credentials, and project dependencies once, then reuse that prepared image for later agent runs. > - This pull request adds reusable sandbox custom images across the provider contract, server runtime, and board UI. > - It also keeps probes and sandbox copy flows aligned with pre-authenticated/custom-image environments. > - The benefit is faster, more reliable sandbox runs without repeatedly rebuilding the same environment setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Inline feature request follows. ### Problem or motivation Sandboxed agents need reusable prepared runtime state so repeated runs do not require manual setup every time. Operators often need system packages, CLIs, SDKs, dependency caches, credentials, and project tooling available before an agent can work productively. ### Proposed solution Add a provider-level custom-image capability, server-side setup/capture lifecycle, Daytona/fake provider support, and board UI controls for creating, testing, selecting, and deleting custom images. ### Alternatives considered Leaving this as provider-specific setup outside Paperclip would keep the control plane blind to image state and would not give agents consistent environment metadata. Re-running setup commands for every lease is simpler, but slower and less reliable for interactive or credentialed setup. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this aligns with the Cloud / Sandbox agents roadmap area and does not duplicate any related public issue or PR found by search. Additional context: - Subsystem affected: cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `packages/plugins`, `server`, `ui`). - Duplicate search: searched GitHub for `sandbox custom image` and `sandbox template environment`; no related public issues or PRs were found. ## What Changed - Added custom-image shared types, validators, constants, API paths, and database schema/migration. - Added server services/routes for custom-image templates and setup sessions, including runtime cleanup and provider metadata handling. - Extended plugin/sandbox provider capabilities for interactive setup, template capture, and template deletion. - Implemented custom-image support in the fake sandbox provider and Daytona provider. - Updated environment runtime/config handling so active custom images flow into leases, probes, and agent execution. - Added board UI controls and API client support for custom-image setup, capture, selection, status, and error states. - Hardened sandbox copy/probe behavior for insecure clipboard contexts and pre-authenticated sandbox images. - Added targeted coverage across shared validators, DB schema, server routes/services, provider plugins, adapter probes, and UI flows. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.probe.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `rm -rf packages/db/dist && pnpm test:run` - Public-safety scan of the final diff found no internal Paperclip issue links, private instance URLs, or real secret patterns. ## Risks - Adds a database migration and new environment runtime tables, so migration ordering and rollback need care. - Provider implementations may differ in how reliably they can capture/delete images; unsupported providers surface capability-gated UI states. - Custom-image state can contain operator-prepared tooling and credentials inside the provider image, so providers must enforce their own access controls and cleanup semantics. - Broad surface area across shared contracts, server runtime, plugins, adapters, and UI means CI and Greptile review should be watched closely. > 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 (`gpt-5`) via Codex CLI with tool use and code execution. Assisted with branch cleanup, conflict resolution, local verification, and PR preparation. Earlier branch implementation work was assisted by Paperclip-managed Claude/Codex agents. ## 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>	2026-06-30 09:57:49 -07:00