Files
PaperClipAI/server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit-postgres.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

117 lines
3.8 KiB
TypeScript

import { randomUUID } from "node:crypto";
import { and, eq } from "drizzle-orm";
import { afterAll, afterEach, beforeAll, describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
import {
activityLog,
agents,
companies,
createDb,
heartbeatRuns,
} from "@paperclipai/db";
import {
getEmbeddedPostgresTestSupport,
startEmbeddedPostgresTestDatabase,
} from "./helpers/embedded-postgres.js";
import {
CROSS_ISSUE_INFLUENCE_ENFORCE_AT,
observeCrossIssueInfluence,
} from "../services/cross-issue-influence-limit.js";
const embeddedPostgresSupport = await getEmbeddedPostgresTestSupport();
const describeEmbeddedPostgres = embeddedPostgresSupport.supported ? describe : describe.skip;
describeEmbeddedPostgres("cross-issue influence limit PostgreSQL serialization", () => {
let db!: ReturnType<typeof createDb>;
let tempDb: Awaited<ReturnType<typeof startEmbeddedPostgresTestDatabase>> | null = null;
beforeAll(async () => {
tempDb = await startEmbeddedPostgresTestDatabase("paperclip-cross-issue-cap-");
db = createDb(tempDb.connectionString);
}, 20_000);
afterEach(async () => {
await db.delete(activityLog);
await db.delete(heartbeatRuns);
await db.delete(agents);
await db.delete(companies);
});
afterAll(async () => {
await tempDb?.cleanup();
});
it("allows exactly one of concurrent attempts 20 and 21", async () => {
const companyId = randomUUID();
const agentId = randomUUID();
const runId = randomUUID();
const sourceIssueId = randomUUID();
const targetIssueId = randomUUID();
await db.insert(companies).values({
id: companyId,
name: "Paperclip",
issuePrefix: `C${companyId.replace(/-/g, "").slice(0, 6).toUpperCase()}`,
defaultResponsibleUserId: "board-user",
});
await db.insert(agents).values({
id: agentId,
companyId,
name: "Concurrent Coder",
role: "engineer",
adapterType: "codex_local",
adapterConfig: {},
runtimeConfig: {},
permissions: {},
});
await db.insert(heartbeatRuns).values({
id: runId,
companyId,
agentId,
status: "running",
responsibleUserId: "board-user",
contextSnapshot: { issueId: sourceIssueId },
});
await db.insert(activityLog).values(
Array.from({ length: 18 }, () => ({
companyId,
actorType: "agent" as const,
actorId: agentId,
agentId,
runId,
action: "issue.cross_issue_influence_observed",
entityType: "issue",
entityId: targetIssueId,
})),
);
const input = {
companyId,
runId,
agentId,
targetIssueId,
targetIssueIdentifier: "CAP-2",
kind: "comment" as const,
now: CROSS_ISSUE_INFLUENCE_ENFORCE_AT,
};
// A comment, a PATCH, and an issue-thread interaction resolution race for the
// last slot of the shared budget: the row lock must let exactly one of 19/20
// through per attempt and fail the twenty-first closed.
const decisions = await Promise.all([
observeCrossIssueInfluence(db, input),
observeCrossIssueInfluence(db, { ...input, kind: "update" }),
observeCrossIssueInfluence(db, { ...input, kind: "interaction_resolution" }),
]);
expect(decisions.map((decision) => decision?.allowed).sort()).toEqual([false, true, true]);
expect(decisions.map((decision) => decision?.count).sort((a, b) => Number(a) - Number(b)))
.toEqual([19, 20, 21]);
const recorded = await db
.select({ action: activityLog.action })
.from(activityLog)
.where(and(eq(activityLog.companyId, companyId), eq(activityLog.runId, runId)));
expect(recorded.filter((row) => row.action === "issue.cross_issue_influence_observed")).toHaveLength(20);
expect(recorded.filter((row) => row.action === "issue.cross_issue_influence_cap_rejected")).toHaveLength(1);
});
});