mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-09 16:35:27 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
3bbb8d0f69
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - AgentMail connections create inboxes and handle email tasks. > - A failed provider request currently records only its HTTP status. > - The same 403 can mean a permission denial, a resource limit, or another provider restriction. > - This pull request records a fixed operation name and a documented, allowlisted error code. > - Operators can distinguish these failures without exposing provider payloads or changing retry behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An AgentMail inbox creation failure reports only `AgentMail request failed (403)`. The response body is deliberately excluded because it can contain private mail or credentials. That also discards the provider code needed to identify the cause. **Expected behavior** Keep the HTTP failure visible with a fixed operation name and a safe provider code. Never copy arbitrary error text, resource identifiers, suggested fixes, or URLs into diagnostics. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Make an inbox creation request through `agentmailApi` with a fake provider returning HTTP 403 and `code: "missing_permission"`. 2. Observe that the old error lacks the operation and provider code. 3. With this change, verify the error includes `operation=create_inbox, code=missing_permission`, preserves status 403, and excludes all other response fields. Related work: #13256 introduced the AgentMail connection. The provider documents stable codes in its [error reference](https://docs.agentmail.to/errors). ## What Changed - Add a fixed method/route-to-operation map and an allowlist of documented provider codes. - Read at most 8 KiB for diagnostics, with a one-second deadline. Cancel unread bodies and preserve the HTTP error if reading or parsing fails. - Keep the existing error prefix, status, retry delay, and failure handling. - Add regression coverage and document the diagnostic limits. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agentmail-api.test.ts` — 44 tests passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed before the review correction. Final `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not finish successfully; three company-skills-service failures were observed outside the changed module. The final-head CI server suites passed. The remaining workspaces-b CI retry covers an unrelated HTTP/2 port collision. - The diff passed a scan for configured secrets, private deployment references, and non-fixture email addresses. ## Risks - A failed request can now wait up to one extra second while reading its diagnostic code. - New, missing, malformed, or oversized provider codes report `unknown`. A future provider code needs an explicit allowlist update. - This is a diagnostics change. It does not establish or repair the cause of an existing provider denial. - No schema, credential policy, or retry behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact served model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## 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 - [x] Greptile is 5/5 at 20853e31abacf53a32f1a63467ee208a719bbf00; the locked-body finding is fixed and its thread resolved - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Final verification (September 30): all final-head GitHub checks pass at `20853e31abacf53a32f1a63467ee208a719bbf00`, including the targeted workspaces-b rerun after the unrelated EADDRINUSE failure. Greptile scored 5/5 on this head and no review threads remain unresolved. The branch is mergeable. The local full-suite run did not yield a passing completion; CI completed successfully across all suites. This public PR remains open for maintainer merge. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>