mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
Apolinario RatioandApolinarioRatio
7787106e5c
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Board users and board API keys coordinate agents by commenting on
and updating issues.
> - `issue:comment` and `issue:mutate` are intentionally null-mapped
authorization actions, so they need explicit same-company fallback
handling.
> - Same-company board-key writes worked for unassigned or same-actor
issues but failed for issues assigned to another agent.
> - That blocked cross-agent coordination because a board key could not
comment on or patch another agent's issue even inside the same company.
> - This pull request adds the missing board-member issue-write fallback
while keeping viewers denied and sparse service calls fail-closed.
> - The benefit is that non-viewer board members can coordinate agent
work across assignees without restoring broad instance-admin elevation.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. Duplicate search performed:
- `gh search prs --repo paperclipai/paperclip "board key issue mutate"`
returned only this PR.
- `gh search issues --repo paperclipai/paperclip "board key
authorization boundary"` returned no issues.
Bug description:
### What happened
Same-company board-key actors received `403 "Issue is outside this
actor's authorization boundary"` when posting comments or patching
issues assigned to another agent.
### Expected behavior
Active same-company non-viewer board members can comment on and mutate
issues in their company, regardless of agent assignee; viewer members
remain denied.
### Steps to reproduce
Authenticate as a board API key for an active non-viewer company member,
then `POST /api/issues/{id}/comments` or `PATCH /api/issues/{id}`
against an issue assigned to a different agent in the same company.
### Paperclip version or commit
Observed against the current published 2026.626.0 package line and fixed
against current `master`.
### Deployment mode
Authenticated/tailnet board-key access.
## What Changed
- Added a board-actor fallback for `issue:comment` and `issue:mutate` in
`server/src/services/authorization.ts`.
- Restricted that fallback to fully contextualized issue resources with
issue id, status, and explicit assignee fields so sparse service calls
still fail closed.
- Allowed active same-company non-viewer board memberships and denied
viewer memberships for these issue-write actions.
- Added regression coverage for non-viewer board-key comment/mutate on
an issue assigned to another agent.
- Added regression coverage for viewer denial on both `issue:comment`
and `issue:mutate`.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts` passed: 35/35.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- `git diff --check` passed.
## Risks
Low-to-moderate authorization risk because this changes issue-write
access. The scope is constrained to active same-company board
memberships, excludes viewers, and requires route-shaped issue context
before granting access. Cross-company access and sparse/null-mapped
calls continue to fail closed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with local shell,
GitHub CLI, and test execution tools in an OpenClaw/Codex environment.
## 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
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] 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: ApolinarioRatio <ApolinarioRatio@users.noreply.github.com>