mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-08 01:57:31 +01:00
Svetlana ZolotenkovaandPaperclip
1b0f78100d
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agents often check a human approval. The check must confirm the role
of the approving user in the company.
> - An agent can read the company user directory. The directory removes
the membership role from the server record.
> - The admin member list requires `users:manage_permissions`. An
approval check must not need that permission.
> - This pull request returns `membershipRole` in the existing user
directory and keeps all access limits.
> - The benefit is that agents can verify an approver's role without
admin permissions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
`GET /api/companies/{companyId}/user-directory` returns active users
without `membershipRole`. An agent that checks the authority of an
approving user cannot tell an `owner` from other roles. `/members`
requires `users:manage_permissions`.
**Expected behavior**
The directory returns the exact `membershipRole` from
`companyMemberships`. A missing role stays `null`. Reading this field
does not require admin permissions. Member management keeps its current
limits.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Use a company with an active `owner` user and an active user without
a role.
2. Call `/user-directory` with an agent key.
3. Before this change, neither record has `membershipRole`. After this
change, the field is `owner` and `null`.
4. The same agent still cannot read `/members` or change a member.
## What Changed
- Add `membershipRole` to the select and result of
`loadCompanyUserDirectory`.
- Test the exact `owner`/`null` values, agent read access, denied admin
read and change, denied other company, and denied unauthenticated
request.
- Keep the existing `assertCompanyAccess` and the company, user type,
and active filters.
- The client type includes a nullable `membershipRole`. The management
test rejects only `users:manage_permissions` and checks the exact calls.
The first review findings are fixed in a0d1ad3.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`: pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`: pass.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`: pass.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/company-user-directory-route.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/access-routes-hidden-floor.test.ts`: 16 passed, 17
skipped. `ui/src/lib/company-members.test.ts` is added.
- The regression test fails on the old `access.ts` because
`membershipRole` is missing. It passes after the change.
- `git diff --check`: pass.
## Risks
The directory response gets one more field. There are no migrations. The
role comes directly from the server record, with no `owner` fallback.
User management permissions do not change.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with shell tools, code editing, and test runs. The
environment does not expose the exact model identifier.
## 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>