mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-12 08:19:54 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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>
144 lines
4.4 KiB
TypeScript
144 lines
4.4 KiB
TypeScript
import { QueryClient } from "@tanstack/react-query";
|
|
import type { Issue } from "@paperclipai/shared";
|
|
import { beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
|
|
import { issuesApi } from "@/api/issues";
|
|
import {
|
|
fetchIssueDetail,
|
|
getCachedIssueDetail,
|
|
prefetchIssueDetail,
|
|
seedIssueDetailCache,
|
|
} from "./issueDetailCache";
|
|
import { queryKeys } from "./queryKeys";
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/api/issues", () => ({
|
|
issuesApi: {
|
|
get: vi.fn(),
|
|
},
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
function createIssue(overrides: Partial<Issue> = {}): Issue {
|
|
return {
|
|
id: "issue-1",
|
|
identifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
projectId: null,
|
|
projectWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
goalId: null,
|
|
parentId: null,
|
|
title: "Fast link target",
|
|
description: null,
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
priority: "medium",
|
|
reviewPolicy: null,
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
responsibleUserId: null,
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
createdByUserId: null,
|
|
issueNumber: 1,
|
|
requestDepth: 0,
|
|
billingCode: null,
|
|
assigneeAdapterOverrides: null,
|
|
executionWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
executionWorkspacePreference: null,
|
|
executionWorkspaceSettings: null,
|
|
checkoutRunId: null,
|
|
executionRunId: null,
|
|
executionAgentNameKey: null,
|
|
executionLockedAt: null,
|
|
startedAt: null,
|
|
completedAt: null,
|
|
cancelledAt: null,
|
|
hiddenAt: null,
|
|
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-11T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-11T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
labels: [],
|
|
labelIds: [],
|
|
myLastTouchAt: null,
|
|
lastExternalCommentAt: null,
|
|
isUnreadForMe: false,
|
|
...overrides,
|
|
workMode: overrides.workMode ?? "standard",
|
|
};
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
describe("issueDetailCache", () => {
|
|
let queryClient: QueryClient;
|
|
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
|
queryClient = new QueryClient({
|
|
defaultOptions: {
|
|
queries: {
|
|
retry: false,
|
|
},
|
|
},
|
|
});
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("seeds and resolves issue detail by both identifier and id", () => {
|
|
const issue = createIssue();
|
|
|
|
seedIssueDetailCache(queryClient, issue, { issueRef: issue.identifier });
|
|
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier)).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.id)).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(queryClient.getQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.identifier!))).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(queryClient.getQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.id))).toEqual(issue);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("prefetches with the provided issue snapshot without forcing a fresh fetch", async () => {
|
|
const issue = createIssue();
|
|
|
|
await prefetchIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier!, { issue });
|
|
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier)).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.id)).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(issuesApi.get).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("does not seed partial issue snapshots during prefetch", async () => {
|
|
const issue = createIssue();
|
|
const partialIssue = {
|
|
id: issue.id,
|
|
identifier: issue.identifier,
|
|
title: issue.title,
|
|
status: issue.status,
|
|
priority: issue.priority,
|
|
} as Issue;
|
|
vi.mocked(issuesApi.get).mockResolvedValue(issue);
|
|
|
|
await prefetchIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier!, { issue: partialIssue });
|
|
|
|
expect(issuesApi.get).toHaveBeenCalledWith(issue.identifier);
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier)).toEqual(issue);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("does not write partial issue snapshots into the detail cache", () => {
|
|
const issue = createIssue();
|
|
const partialIssue = {
|
|
id: issue.id,
|
|
identifier: issue.identifier,
|
|
title: issue.title,
|
|
status: issue.status,
|
|
priority: issue.priority,
|
|
} as Issue;
|
|
|
|
seedIssueDetailCache(queryClient, partialIssue, { issueRef: issue.identifier });
|
|
|
|
expect(queryClient.getQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.identifier!))).toBeUndefined();
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier)).toBeUndefined();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("hydrates both cache aliases from a fetched issue detail response", async () => {
|
|
const issue = createIssue();
|
|
vi.mocked(issuesApi.get).mockResolvedValue(issue);
|
|
|
|
const result = await fetchIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier!);
|
|
|
|
expect(result).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(queryClient.getQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.identifier!))).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(queryClient.getQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.id))).toEqual(issue);
|
|
});
|
|
});
|