mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 08:22:20 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
1f27427ffd
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task startup checks who can read each physical workspace. > - A shared root retains the identities of earlier runs. > - The service reloads the same agents, tasks, projects and run policies for each reader. > - Database round trips grow with the retained run history and hold the company provenance lock. > - This pull request batches these reads within each guarded operation. Each run keeps its own identity and policy. > - The benefit is less task preparation time while current access checks remain in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16424. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Workspace admission, repository publication and batched read authorization. **Current behavior** A synthetic shared workspace with 64 retained readers makes 680 SQL calls during a publication check. The same principals are loaded repeatedly. **Proposed behavior** Load retained identities and saved policies in batches of at most 500 IDs. Load project settings once per guarded operation. Reload records and permission grants on the next operation. **Reason and benefit** The local service benchmark with an injected 4 ms loopback round trip changed from about 7.0 seconds to 0.5 seconds and from 680 SQL calls to 47. This measures synthetic PostgreSQL data, not hosted response latency. ## What Changed - Extract retained-reader identity loading and acquisition trust checks into a focused service module. Select only the identity and trust fields used by these checks. - Batch company-scoped run, agent and task lookups. Keep each run's task binding, responsible user and policy checks. - Batch saved run-policy reads in read authorization. Keep company and agent identity checks and ordinary lookup behavior for noncanonical IDs. - Reuse project settings within one root authorization operation. - Add query budgets, identity failures, batch-boundary coverage, policy comparisons and grant-revocation tests. - Document snapshot lifetime and query scope. ## Verification - PASS: 197 focused workspace and authorization tests. - PASS: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - PASS: `pnpm build`. - PASS: all current-head hosted CI test groups, Runner checks, E2E shards, security checks and builds (55 successful checks; two unrelated Storybook jobs skipped). The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` was stopped after all equivalent hosted CI groups passed. It has no complete local result; the hosted matrix supplies the full-suite proof. - Synthetic real-PostgreSQL benchmark: 383 workspaces and 64 retained readers; 4 ms simulated loopback round trip. Publication check: 680 -> 47 SQL calls; 7.0-7.1 s -> 0.48-0.51 s. Three concurrent checks: 20.0-23.1 s -> 1.52-2.12 s. Setup and provider execution are excluded. Live reply timing remains unverified. - Regression coverage compares complete batched and ordinary authorization decisions. It checks distinct saved policies for the same principals, missing identities, company mismatch, task mismatch, responsible-user mismatch, revoked project grants and changes after the first operation. - No new schema, API or UI contract. ## Risks - A batch must not combine different runs' identities or policies. Each lookup and policy decision retains its run, company and agent checks. - Snapshots last for one guarded operation. Later admissions and publications reload data. No authorization cache survives the operation. - Restricted project trust checks keep their existing per-run validation path. Hosted latency remains an acceptance gate. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with xhigh reasoning, code execution and tool use. The runtime does not expose the configured context-window size. ## 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>