Files
PaperClipAI/server/src/services/attention-resolver-audience.test.ts
T
DottaandPaperclip 10d0555189 fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision
record.
> - Resolver routes used different authorization rules.
> - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with
normal issue access.
> - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction.
> - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy
evaluator.
> - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and
company isolation.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Fixes: #8087

Refs: #7403

Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change
keeps human-only review as an explicit policy.

**What happened?**

Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still
required board access.

This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see
the same problem without board identity.

**Expected behavior**

Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract.

The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It
must also apply all normal governance controls.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent.
2. Resolve it with another authorized agent.
3. Observe the board-only denial.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The problem exists on `master` before this change.

**Deployment mode**

Local development with `pnpm dev`.

## What Changed

- Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind.
- Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task
watchdog scope.
- Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit.
- Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction
data.
- Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board
UI.
- Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression
fixtures.
- Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior.
- Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior
runs.

## Product Rules

- An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the
next action.
- `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond.
- `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator.
- `human_only` requires an authorized person.
- A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the
audience.
- These controls cannot widen the audience.
- A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent.
- A task watchdog does not receive board authority.
- An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue
action limit.
- Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions.
- The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts`
- The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice.
- The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing
provenance.
- The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks.
- The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments.

## Risks

- New interaction writes use `anyone` by default.
- Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need
stricter review.
- Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human
restrictions.
- Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery.
- Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit.
- The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind.
- Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these
rules.

> This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in
`ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID
or context window.

The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test
execution.

## 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the
required labels
- [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented the risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00

102 lines
3.4 KiB
TypeScript

import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
import { interactionResolverAudience } from "./attention.js";
const AGENT_NAMES: Record<string, string> = {
"agent-watchdog": "Watchdog",
"agent-codex": "CodexCoder",
};
const agentName = (agentId: string) => AGENT_NAMES[agentId] ?? null;
function row(overrides: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
return {
addresseeAgentId: null,
createdByAgentId: "agent-watchdog",
requestedResolverPolicy: "anyone",
effectiveResolverPolicy: "anyone",
resolverPolicyProvenance: "inherited",
effectiveResolverPolicySource: "requested",
...overrides,
} as Parameters<typeof interactionResolverAudience>[0];
}
describe("attention feed resolver audience", () => {
it("carries the open default with the creator named", () => {
expect(interactionResolverAudience(row(), agentName)).toEqual({
requestedResolverPolicy: "anyone",
effectiveResolverPolicy: "anyone",
effectiveResolverPolicySource: "requested",
resolverPolicyProvenance: "inherited",
addresseeAgentId: null,
addresseeName: null,
createdByAgentId: "agent-watchdog",
createdByAgentName: "Watchdog",
});
});
it("names the addressed agent", () => {
expect(interactionResolverAudience(row({ addresseeAgentId: "agent-codex" }), agentName))
.toMatchObject({ addresseeAgentId: "agent-codex", addresseeName: "CodexCoder" });
});
it("reports the company cap that narrowed the requested audience", () => {
expect(interactionResolverAudience(
row({
requestedResolverPolicy: "anyone",
effectiveResolverPolicy: "human_only",
effectiveResolverPolicySource: "company_cap",
}),
agentName,
)).toMatchObject({
requestedResolverPolicy: "anyone",
effectiveResolverPolicy: "human_only",
effectiveResolverPolicySource: "company_cap",
});
});
it("keeps a pre-migration board_or_agents row restricted, matching the evaluator", () => {
// The queue must not read `Anyone` while the resolution routes still treat
// the card as creator-excluded.
expect(interactionResolverAudience(
row({
requestedResolverPolicy: "board_or_agents",
effectiveResolverPolicy: "board_or_agents",
resolverPolicyProvenance: "legacy_inherited_restriction",
}),
agentName,
)).toMatchObject({
requestedResolverPolicy: "not_creator",
effectiveResolverPolicy: "not_creator",
resolverPolicyProvenance: "legacy_inherited_restriction",
});
});
it("infers legacy provenance for a row written before the column existed", () => {
expect(interactionResolverAudience(
row({
requestedResolverPolicy: "board_only",
effectiveResolverPolicy: "board_only",
resolverPolicyProvenance: null,
effectiveResolverPolicySource: null,
}),
agentName,
)).toMatchObject({
requestedResolverPolicy: "human_only",
effectiveResolverPolicy: "human_only",
resolverPolicyProvenance: "legacy_inherited_restriction",
effectiveResolverPolicySource: "requested",
});
});
it("leaves an unknown agent unnamed rather than inventing a responder", () => {
expect(interactionResolverAudience(
row({ addresseeAgentId: "agent-deleted", createdByAgentId: null }),
agentName,
)).toMatchObject({
addresseeName: null,
createdByAgentId: null,
createdByAgentName: null,
});
});
});