mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 02:44:50 +01:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - In a multi-tenant deployment, route handlers that take a resource id (`issue`, `goal`, `project`, `approval`, etc.) look the resource up by id and then call `assertCompanyAccess` on its `companyId` — 404 if it doesn't exist, 403 if it exists in another tenant > - The split status codes are a classic *existence oracle*: any authenticated user can enumerate ids across tenants by probing for the 403/404 boundary, mapping out which issues, labels, approvals, etc. exist in other customers' tenants even when they cannot read the contents > - The right fix is a single uniform 404 for both "not found" and "found but cross-tenant", which collapses the oracle but still preserves write-path checks (active membership, viewer-readonly) for *authorized* tenants > - This pull request adds a non-throwing `hasCompanyAccess(req, companyId)` helper plus a `getAccessibleResource` wrapper that ~130 handlers across 14 route files now use, folding the access check into the existence check while still running `assertCompanyAccess` for authorized tenants so viewer-readonly / inactive-membership rejections fire unchanged on write paths > - The benefit is closing a multi-tenant information leak without breaking write-path security or single-tenant local-first behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #709 — asks for company-scope regression coverage across approval/activity/access routes, because a subtle route refactor could leak cross-tenant data; this PR hardens exactly those surfaces (uniform 404 across 14 route files including `approvals`, `activity`, `secrets`) and updates cross-tenant expectations in test files. It does not add the full coverage matrix #709 asks for — hence Refs, not Closes. No existing issue covers the oracle itself — described in-PR: - Route handlers returned 404 for "not found" but 403 for "exists in another tenant", a classic *existence oracle*: any authenticated user could enumerate ids across tenants by probing the 403/404 boundary. - That maps out which issues, labels, approvals, etc. exist in other customers' tenants even when their contents are unreadable. - Fix: a uniform 404 for both cases, while keeping write-path checks (active membership, viewer-readonly) for authorized tenants. ## What Changed - **`server/src/routes/authz.ts`** — new `hasCompanyAccess(req, companyId): boolean` helper alongside the existing `assertCompanyAccess`. Docstring spells out the two-step pattern (404 gate, then `assertCompanyAccess` for write-path checks). The helper mirrors `assertCompanyAccess`'s company-scope semantics exactly — in particular, signed-in instance admins do **not** get blanket access to companies they are not a member of (the repo's `authz-company-access` tests pin that behavior for `assertCompanyAccess`; an earlier draft of the helper accidentally widened it for reads). - **`getAccessibleResource(req, res, lookup, notFoundMessage)`** — the safe thing is now the easy thing. One helper wraps the whole pattern (uniform 404 for missing/cross-tenant, then `assertCompanyAccess` for write-path membership checks) and ~130 handlers across 14 route files use it: ```ts const goal = await getAccessibleResource(req, res, svc.getById(id), "Goal not found"); if (!goal) return; ``` Files: `activity`, `agents`, `approvals`, `assets`, `costs`, `environments`, `execution-workspaces`, `file-resources`, `goals`, `issue-tree-control`, `issues`, `projects`, `routines`, `secrets`. Handlers with bespoke not-found behavior (the legacy `200 []` contract, audit-logged denials in `file-resources`, null-returning authz helpers) compose `hasCompanyAccess` directly using the documented two-step pattern: ```ts // step 1: close the oracle (uniform 404 for both not-found and cross-tenant) if (!existing || !hasCompanyAccess(req, existing.companyId)) { res.status(404).json({ error: "Goal not found" }); return; } // step 2: enforce write-path membership checks for authorised tenants (no-op on GET) assertCompanyAccess(req, existing.companyId); ``` Routes where `companyId` comes from *request input* (`req.params.companyId`, `req.body.companyId`, e.g. in `companies.ts` and `plugins.ts`) deliberately retain plain `assertCompanyAccess` — there's no existence oracle to close because the companyId is an input, not a discovered value. - **Full-sweep coverage** — a scripted audit of every `assertCompanyAccess(req, <resource>.companyId)` call site in `server/src/routes/` found ~55 lookup-then-assert pairs the first pass missed; all are now gated. Notable ones: the `/secret-provider-configs/:id` CRUD routes, the agents instructions-bundle/config-revision/skills-sync routes (which check access via the `assertCanUpdateAgent` / `assertCanReadAgent` / `assertCanManageInstructionsPath` helpers), `POST /heartbeat-runs/:runId/watchdog-decisions`, `GET /issues/:id/cost-summary`, the environment + environment-lease GET routes, all six issue-tree-control routes, ~24 issue sub-resource routes (document annotations, interactions, approvals links, recovery actions, plan decompositions, lock/unlock), and the three workspace file-resource routes (these throw `notFound` instead of `forbidden` inside their audit-logging wrappers, so denied attempts are still activity-logged server-side while the client sees a uniform 404). - **Helpers made self-defending** — `assertCanUpdateAgent` / `assertCanReadAgent` / `assertCanManageInstructionsPath` (agents) and `assertCanManage{Project,Execution}WorkspaceRuntimeServices` throw `notFound` for cross-tenant resources before their `assertCompanyAccess` step, so a future caller that forgets the route-level gate still can't reopen the oracle. - **Pattern enforcement** — new `authz-existence-oracle-guard.test.ts` statically scans `server/src/routes/*.ts` and fails CI on any `assertCompanyAccess(req, <resource>.companyId)` call that is not preceded by a `hasCompanyAccess` gate, with an explicit allowlist (plus staleness check) for the request-input cases. New routes that regress to the 403/404 split fail the suite with a message pointing at the documented pattern. - **Tests** — cross-tenant expectations updated from 403→404 where routes are now gated; new `hasCompanyAccess` unit tests in `authz-company-access.test.ts` pin the instance-admin/local-implicit/agent/none semantics in lockstep with `assertCompanyAccess`; `write-path-membership.test.ts` (added in an earlier round) confirms viewer/inactive users are still rejected on writes. - **One legacy-contract preserve** — `GET /heartbeat-runs/:runId/issues` still returns `200 []` for both "doesn't exist" and "cross-tenant" so the legacy contract is preserved while the oracle stays closed. ## Verification - `pnpm run typecheck` — PASS. - `pnpm -F @paperclipai/server exec vitest run` — full server suite green locally apart from 4 pre-existing local-environment failures (`paperclip-skill-utils` ×2 and `workspace-runtime` ×1 are cwd/git-environment dependent — verified identical on a clean checkout of the base; `heartbeat-process-recovery` is the known macOS flake). - The new `authz-existence-oracle-guard` test sweeps `server/src/routes/*.ts` and confirms no remaining `assertCompanyAccess(resource.companyId)` site without a `hasCompanyAccess` gate; the only allowlisted holdouts take `companyId` from request input. ## Risks - **API contract narrowing.** Any client that specifically checked for `403` on cross-tenant access now sees `404`. This is a strict narrowing (one status instead of two for the same negative outcome) and matches what a client should expect for any id it can't access. - **Write-path checks preserved.** `assertCompanyAccess` still runs after the 404 gate on write routes, so viewer-readonly / inactive-membership rejections fire unchanged for legitimate users. - **Instance-admin scope unchanged.** `hasCompanyAccess` denies signed-in instance admins without an explicit membership, exactly like `assertCompanyAccess` (pinned by unit tests) — so the gate introduces no new read access for admins. - **Single-tenant local-first deploys** behave identically — the helper short-circuits to `true` for `local_implicit` sessions. - No new env vars, no deployment-mode switch. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context), extended thinking mode; completeness sweep + instance-admin parity fix by Claude Fable 5 (1M context). ## Checklist - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] Thinking path traces from project context to this change - [x] Model used specified - [x] Checked ROADMAP.md — part of the multi-tenant hardening initiative - [x] Tests run locally and pass - [x] Added/updated cross-tenant 404 expectations across test files - [x] No UI changes - [x] Documented risks above - [x] Will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge Part of the multi-tenant hardening initiative — see also #5864 (per-company JWT keys) and #5865 (plugin tables `company_id`). --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
450 lines
14 KiB
TypeScript
450 lines
14 KiB
TypeScript
import express from "express";
|
|
import request from "supertest";
|
|
import { beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
|
|
|
|
const mockApprovalService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
list: vi.fn(),
|
|
getById: vi.fn(),
|
|
create: vi.fn(),
|
|
approve: vi.fn(),
|
|
reject: vi.fn(),
|
|
requestRevision: vi.fn(),
|
|
resubmit: vi.fn(),
|
|
listComments: vi.fn(),
|
|
addComment: vi.fn(),
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
const mockHeartbeatService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
wakeup: vi.fn(),
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
const mockIssueApprovalService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
listIssuesForApproval: vi.fn(),
|
|
linkManyForApproval: vi.fn(),
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
const mockSecretService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
normalizeHireApprovalPayloadForPersistence: vi.fn(),
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
const mockLogActivity = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
|
const mockAccessService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
decide: vi.fn(),
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
function registerModuleMocks() {
|
|
vi.doMock("../services/index.js", () => ({
|
|
accessService: () => mockAccessService,
|
|
approvalService: () => mockApprovalService,
|
|
heartbeatService: () => mockHeartbeatService,
|
|
issueApprovalService: () => mockIssueApprovalService,
|
|
logActivity: mockLogActivity,
|
|
secretService: () => mockSecretService,
|
|
}));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
async function createApp(actorOverrides: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
|
|
const [{ errorHandler }, { approvalRoutes }] = await Promise.all([
|
|
import("../middleware/index.js"),
|
|
import("../routes/approvals.js"),
|
|
]);
|
|
const app = express();
|
|
app.use(express.json());
|
|
app.use((req, _res, next) => {
|
|
(req as any).actor = {
|
|
type: "board",
|
|
userId: "user-1",
|
|
companyIds: ["company-1"],
|
|
source: "session",
|
|
isInstanceAdmin: false,
|
|
...actorOverrides,
|
|
};
|
|
next();
|
|
});
|
|
app.use("/api", approvalRoutes(createRouteDb()));
|
|
app.use(errorHandler);
|
|
return app;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
function createRouteDb(contextSnapshot: Record<string, unknown> = {}, runId = "run-1", agentId = "agent-1") {
|
|
const runRows = [{
|
|
id: runId,
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
agentId,
|
|
contextSnapshot,
|
|
}];
|
|
return {
|
|
select: vi.fn((selection: Record<string, unknown> = {}) => ({
|
|
from: vi.fn(() => ({
|
|
where: vi.fn(() => ({
|
|
then: async (resolve: (rows: unknown[]) => unknown) => resolve(
|
|
Object.keys(selection).includes("contextSnapshot") ? runRows : [],
|
|
),
|
|
})),
|
|
})),
|
|
})),
|
|
} as any;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
async function createAgentApp(options: { runId?: string; contextSnapshot?: Record<string, unknown> } = {}) {
|
|
const [{ errorHandler }, { approvalRoutes }] = await Promise.all([
|
|
import("../middleware/index.js"),
|
|
import("../routes/approvals.js"),
|
|
]);
|
|
const app = express();
|
|
app.use(express.json());
|
|
app.use((req, _res, next) => {
|
|
(req as any).actor = {
|
|
type: "agent",
|
|
agentId: "agent-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
runId: options.runId ?? "run-1",
|
|
source: "api_key",
|
|
isInstanceAdmin: false,
|
|
};
|
|
next();
|
|
});
|
|
app.use("/api", approvalRoutes(createRouteDb(options.contextSnapshot, options.runId ?? "run-1")));
|
|
app.use(errorHandler);
|
|
return app;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
describe("approval routes idempotent retries", () => {
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
|
vi.resetModules();
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../services/index.js");
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../routes/approvals.js");
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../routes/authz.js");
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../middleware/index.js");
|
|
registerModuleMocks();
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks();
|
|
mockApprovalService.list.mockReset();
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockReset();
|
|
mockApprovalService.create.mockReset();
|
|
mockApprovalService.approve.mockReset();
|
|
mockApprovalService.reject.mockReset();
|
|
mockApprovalService.requestRevision.mockReset();
|
|
mockApprovalService.resubmit.mockReset();
|
|
mockApprovalService.listComments.mockReset();
|
|
mockApprovalService.addComment.mockReset();
|
|
mockHeartbeatService.wakeup.mockReset();
|
|
mockIssueApprovalService.listIssuesForApproval.mockReset();
|
|
mockIssueApprovalService.linkManyForApproval.mockReset();
|
|
mockSecretService.normalizeHireApprovalPayloadForPersistence.mockReset();
|
|
mockLogActivity.mockReset();
|
|
mockAccessService.decide.mockReset();
|
|
mockAccessService.decide.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
allowed: true,
|
|
action: "company_scope:read",
|
|
reason: "allow_test",
|
|
explanation: "Allowed by test mock.",
|
|
});
|
|
mockHeartbeatService.wakeup.mockResolvedValue({ id: "wake-1" });
|
|
mockIssueApprovalService.listIssuesForApproval.mockResolvedValue([{ id: "issue-1" }]);
|
|
mockLogActivity.mockResolvedValue(undefined);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("does not emit duplicate approval side effects when approve is already resolved", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "approved",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
});
|
|
mockApprovalService.approve.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
approval: {
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "approved",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
},
|
|
applied: false,
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-1/approve")
|
|
.send({});
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
expect(mockIssueApprovalService.listIssuesForApproval).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
expect(mockLogActivity).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("does not emit duplicate rejection logs when reject is already resolved", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "rejected",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
});
|
|
mockApprovalService.reject.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
approval: {
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "rejected",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
},
|
|
applied: false,
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-1/reject")
|
|
.send({});
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
expect(mockLogActivity).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("rejects approval decisions for companies outside the caller scope", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-2",
|
|
companyId: "company-2",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-2/approve")
|
|
.send({});
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(404);
|
|
expect(res.body.error).toBe("Approval not found");
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.approve).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("rejects approval revision requests for companies outside the caller scope", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-3",
|
|
companyId: "company-2",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-3/request-revision")
|
|
.send({ decisionNote: "Need changes" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(404);
|
|
expect(res.body.error).toBe("Approval not found");
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.requestRevision).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("derives approval attribution from the authenticated actor on approve", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-4",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
requestedByAgentId: null,
|
|
});
|
|
mockApprovalService.approve.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
approval: {
|
|
id: "approval-4",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "approved",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
requestedByAgentId: null,
|
|
},
|
|
applied: true,
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-4/approve")
|
|
.send({ decidedByUserId: "forged-user", decisionNote: "ship it" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.approve).toHaveBeenCalledWith("approval-4", "user-1", "ship it");
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("derives approval attribution from the authenticated actor on reject", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-5",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
});
|
|
mockApprovalService.reject.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
approval: {
|
|
id: "approval-5",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "rejected",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
},
|
|
applied: true,
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-5/reject")
|
|
.send({ decidedByUserId: "forged-user", decisionNote: "not now" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.reject).toHaveBeenCalledWith("approval-5", "user-1", "not now");
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("derives approval attribution from the authenticated actor on request revision", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-6",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
});
|
|
mockApprovalService.requestRevision.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-6",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "revision_requested",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-6/request-revision")
|
|
.send({ decidedByUserId: "forged-user", decisionNote: "Need changes" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.requestRevision).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
|
|
"approval-6",
|
|
"user-1",
|
|
"Need changes",
|
|
);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("lets agents create generic issue-linked board approval requests", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.create.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
requestedByUserId: null,
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
payload: { title: "Approve hosting spend" },
|
|
decisionNote: null,
|
|
decidedByUserId: null,
|
|
decidedAt: null,
|
|
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-06T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-06T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createAgentApp())
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/approvals")
|
|
.send({
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
issueIds: ["00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001"],
|
|
payload: { title: "Approve hosting spend" },
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
expect([200, 201], JSON.stringify(res.body)).toContain(res.status);
|
|
expect(res.body).toMatchObject({
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
requestedByUserId: null,
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
});
|
|
expect(mockSecretService.normalizeHireApprovalPayloadForPersistence).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
expect(mockIssueApprovalService.linkManyForApproval).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
|
|
"approval-1",
|
|
["00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001"],
|
|
{ agentId: "agent-1", userId: null },
|
|
);
|
|
expect(mockLogActivity).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
|
|
expect.anything(),
|
|
expect.objectContaining({
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
actorType: "agent",
|
|
actorId: "agent-1",
|
|
action: "approval.created",
|
|
}),
|
|
);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("blocks status-only recovery runs from creating approvals", async () => {
|
|
const res = await request(await createAgentApp({
|
|
contextSnapshot: {
|
|
modelProfile: "cheap",
|
|
recoveryIntent: "status_only",
|
|
allowDeliverableWork: false,
|
|
allowDocumentUpdates: false,
|
|
resumeRequiresNormalModel: true,
|
|
},
|
|
}))
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/approvals")
|
|
.send({
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
payload: { title: "Approve hosting spend" },
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status, JSON.stringify(res.body)).toBe(403);
|
|
expect(res.body.error).toContain("Cheap status-only recovery runs cannot create or modify approvals");
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.create).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
expect(mockIssueApprovalService.linkManyForApproval).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("blocks status-only recovery runs from resubmitting approvals", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-7",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
status: "revision_requested",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createAgentApp({
|
|
contextSnapshot: {
|
|
modelProfile: "cheap",
|
|
recoveryIntent: "status_only",
|
|
allowDeliverableWork: false,
|
|
allowDocumentUpdates: false,
|
|
resumeRequiresNormalModel: true,
|
|
},
|
|
}))
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-7/resubmit")
|
|
.send({ payload: { title: "Retry" } });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status, JSON.stringify(res.body)).toBe(403);
|
|
expect(res.body.error).toContain("Cheap status-only recovery runs cannot create or modify approvals");
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.resubmit).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("blocks status-only recovery runs from commenting on approvals", async () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-8",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createAgentApp({
|
|
contextSnapshot: {
|
|
modelProfile: "cheap",
|
|
recoveryIntent: "status_only",
|
|
allowDeliverableWork: false,
|
|
allowDocumentUpdates: false,
|
|
resumeRequiresNormalModel: true,
|
|
},
|
|
}))
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-8/comments")
|
|
.send({ body: "please approve" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status, JSON.stringify(res.body)).toBe(403);
|
|
expect(res.body.error).toContain("Cheap status-only recovery runs cannot create or modify approvals");
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.addComment).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
});
|