mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
297d8741f5
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people share agents while keeping GitHub access personal. > - Each managed Git or GitHub operation selects an eligible connection grant. > - Connecting the same GitHub account twice creates two grants. > - The old resolver counted grants and rejected them as competing identities. > - Managed commands then ran anonymously and reported a misleading login failure. > - This change compares GitHub account IDs and selects one eligible grant for the same account. > - The benefit is reliable access after reconnecting, with clear diagnostics for real failures. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13005. **What happened?** Two active connections owned by one Paperclip user pointed to the same GitHub account. Managed Git refused both as ambiguous. The agent could not push, although the account was connected and had repository access. **Expected behavior** Multiple grants for the same GitHub account resolve to one eligible authorization. Different accounts remain ambiguous. Unavailable access explains its cause without blocking unrelated work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect the same GitHub account twice for one Paperclip user and allow the shared agent through both connection audiences. 2. Start an instruction as that user. 3. Run managed gh or git push. Before this fix, no credential is provided. ## What Changed - Compare stable GitHub account IDs when more than one eligible grant exists. Never deduplicate by login alone. - Prefer an available grant, then the newest authorization with a stable ID tie-breaker. Refresh and webhook timestamps do not change the selection. - Keep the selected credential and connection policy together. Do not combine permissions or fall back from a dedicated account to a personal account. - Print the redacted unavailable reason in managed command output. Unrelated local operations still work anonymously. - Add database and executable launcher regressions, and document selection behavior. ## Verification - Final `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - Fourteen operation credential integration tests passed, covering duplicate personal/dedicated grants, incomplete credentials, distinct accounts with the same login, missing identity metadata, revocation, membership, connection audiences, and A → B → A steering. Existing Git credential and gateway suites and both executable launcher tests also passed. - The local broad test run encountered three embedded-Postgres lifecycle timeouts and stale modules from edits made during that run. A fresh process rerun of all four affected suites passed all 35 tests. The full Node 24 CI test matrix passed on the final commit. - CI passed all 31 checks on `797973b30beb16ba5fa69ed281835e1ab812b449` (Storybook visual regression was correctly skipped). An unrelated Company Settings UI test failed once; the focused local reproduction and rerun of its CI shard both passed without code changes. - Fresh Greptile review of the final commit: 5/5, with no open findings. Security checks passed. - Live acceptance passed with both duplicate connections enabled: managed `gh api user` returned the expected account, managed `git push` succeeded, and the agent created #13023 and pushed its review fixes. No host login or credential changes were used. - Applied the final source/compiled patch to the affected instance with backups, after confirming no runs were active. Restarted service health and the final resolver selection were verified. The patch is an overlay on the existing deployment; this PR supplies the upstream fix. ## Risks The resolver selects one authorization for an already permitted GitHub account. It does not combine repository permissions across connections. If the selected authorization has narrower access, that operation can still be denied by GitHub. Different provider account IDs and unknown duplicate identities continue to fail closed. No schema, host credential, or connection permission changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation and verification with shell, database, and browser tools. The exact model variant 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 - [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>