mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-31 22:24:16 +01:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Human company members receive permission grants from their role preset. > - Human invitations use the Operator role by default. > - The old Operator preset only granted task assignment, so ordinary members could not edit agents or manage connections. > - This pull request gives Operators company editing and audit access while keeping join approval and member-permission management separate. > - Members can configure their agents and accounts without an Owner role. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The default permission grants for human Operators and the invitation role description. **Subsystem affected** server/ permission presets and invitation authorization, plus ui/ invitation and tool access gates. **Current behavior** Operators receive only `tasks:assign` as an explicit default grant. Agent configuration and managed account setup fail their permission checks. **Proposed behavior** Operators receive agent creation/configuration, skills, environments, invitations, task assignment, pipelines, connections, tool management/use, and audit grants. The preset excludes `joins:approve` and `users:manage_permissions`. Operators can invite Operators and Viewers. Inviting a role with either excluded power requires that power, so invitations cannot bypass the restriction. **Reason and benefit** Ordinary company members can edit company work and connect accounts through the existing routes. **Breaking changes** The Operator preset grants more permissions. The existing startup and Cloud sign-in seeding paths can insert these missing grants for existing Operators. They retain custom grant scopes. Explicit invitation grants still take precedence. Inviting Admins now requires join approval; inviting Owners also requires member-permission management. This PR adds no migration or new backfill path. Related: #5945 describes missing role grants in another membership entry point. This PR changes the preset and does not change that endpoint. ## What Changed - Expanded the Operator preset to 14 company editing, invitation, tool, and audit grants. - Kept join approval and member-permission management out of the preset. - Required those powers when an invitation's selected human role includes them, preventing Operators from delegating the excluded powers through Owner/Admin invitations. - Updated the invitation role copy and the product specifications. - Allowed active Operators (including legacy Member roles) through the invite shortcut and advanced tool/profile UI gates. Kept inactive memberships, Viewers, and other companies excluded; API grants remain authoritative. - Added tests for the default Operator grants, both excluded actions, agent editing, company boundaries, and invitation role authorization. - Simplified adapter-route test imports so authorization errors and the error handler use one module graph; retained the upstream mock-initialization fix. - Kept Owner/Admin/Viewer presets and explicit invitation grants unchanged. Added no EE code or database migration. ## Verification - Permission and invitation tests: 38 passed across access service, invitation defaults, and invitation creation routes. - UI access tests: 61 passed across invitation shortcuts, Operator tool/profile access, and invitation UI. - Adapter route tests: 15 passed after resolving the upstream test setup conflict. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed on the final branch. - The initial local `pnpm test:run` general-server batch reported three tool-access failures and eight upload-helper timeouts. Both complete affected suites passed in isolation on the final branch: 403 tests. The initial full local run was not green. - Both complete tool-access and adapter route suites also passed on an untouched snapshot of base `88ff98b83`: 387 tests. The earlier tool failures did not reproduce there. - [All CI gates passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37527422346) for `068be153b9c2a064f2aaccc0627fdf458e73747e`, including the previously failing serialized adapter lane, general tests, E2E, typecheck, build, Runner checks, and canary dry run. - Greptile scored that exact commit 5/5. Superagent passed. Both invitation review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Operators gain broad company editing and invitation access by design. - Existing default seeding can add the new missing grants during startup or Cloud sign-in. It does not replace existing scopes. - Company boundaries and the two excluded permission checks still apply. - An Admin without member-permission management can no longer invite an Owner. Operators retain invitation access for Operator/Viewer roles and agent-only invites. - This PR changes company permissions. Cloud workspace invitation rules remain separate. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. Used repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and test tools. ## 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 a merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
207 lines
6.7 KiB
TypeScript
207 lines
6.7 KiB
TypeScript
import express from "express";
|
|
import request from "supertest";
|
|
import { beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
|
|
|
|
const logActivityMock = vi.fn();
|
|
const canUserMock = vi.fn();
|
|
const insertMock = vi.fn();
|
|
|
|
function registerModuleMocks() {
|
|
vi.doMock("../services/index.js", () => ({
|
|
accessService: () => ({
|
|
isInstanceAdmin: vi.fn(),
|
|
canUser: (...args: unknown[]) => canUserMock(...args),
|
|
hasPermission: vi.fn(),
|
|
}),
|
|
agentService: () => ({
|
|
getById: vi.fn(),
|
|
}),
|
|
boardAuthService: () => ({
|
|
createChallenge: vi.fn(),
|
|
resolveBoardAccess: vi.fn(),
|
|
assertCurrentBoardKey: vi.fn(),
|
|
revokeBoardApiKey: vi.fn(),
|
|
}),
|
|
deduplicateAgentName: vi.fn(),
|
|
logActivity: (...args: unknown[]) => logActivityMock(...args),
|
|
notifyHireApproved: vi.fn(),
|
|
}));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
function createDbStub() {
|
|
const createdInvite = {
|
|
id: "invite-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
inviteType: "company_join",
|
|
allowedJoinTypes: "human",
|
|
tokenHash: "hash",
|
|
defaultsPayload: { humanRole: "viewer" },
|
|
expiresAt: new Date("2027-03-10T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
invitedByUserId: null,
|
|
revokedAt: null,
|
|
acceptedAt: null,
|
|
createdAt: new Date("2026-03-07T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-03-07T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
insert() {
|
|
insertMock();
|
|
return {
|
|
values() {
|
|
return {
|
|
returning() {
|
|
return Promise.resolve([createdInvite]);
|
|
},
|
|
};
|
|
},
|
|
};
|
|
},
|
|
select(_shape?: unknown) {
|
|
return {
|
|
from() {
|
|
const query = {
|
|
leftJoin() {
|
|
return query;
|
|
},
|
|
where() {
|
|
return Promise.resolve([{
|
|
name: "Acme Robotics",
|
|
logoAssetId: "logo-1",
|
|
}]);
|
|
},
|
|
};
|
|
return query;
|
|
},
|
|
};
|
|
},
|
|
};
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
async function createApp(source: "local_implicit" | "session" = "local_implicit") {
|
|
const [{ accessRoutes }, { errorHandler }] = await Promise.all([
|
|
import("../routes/access.js"),
|
|
import("../middleware/index.js"),
|
|
]);
|
|
const app = express();
|
|
app.use(express.json());
|
|
app.use((req, _res, next) => {
|
|
(req as any).actor = {
|
|
type: "board",
|
|
source,
|
|
userId: source === "session" ? "inviter-1" : null,
|
|
companyIds: ["company-1"],
|
|
memberships: [{ companyId: "company-1", membershipRole: "operator", status: "active" }],
|
|
};
|
|
next();
|
|
});
|
|
app.use(
|
|
"/api",
|
|
accessRoutes(createDbStub() as any, {
|
|
deploymentMode: "local_trusted",
|
|
deploymentExposure: "private",
|
|
bindHost: "127.0.0.1",
|
|
allowedHostnames: [],
|
|
}),
|
|
);
|
|
app.use(errorHandler);
|
|
return app;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
describe("POST /companies/:companyId/invites", () => {
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
|
vi.resetModules();
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../services/index.js");
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../routes/access.js");
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../routes/authz.js");
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../middleware/index.js");
|
|
registerModuleMocks();
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks();
|
|
logActivityMock.mockReset();
|
|
canUserMock.mockReset();
|
|
insertMock.mockReset();
|
|
canUserMock.mockImplementation(async (_companyId, _userId, permissionKey) => permissionKey === "users:invite");
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("returns an absolute invite URL using the request base URL", async () => {
|
|
const app = await createApp();
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(app)
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/invites")
|
|
.set("host", "paperclip.example")
|
|
.set("x-forwarded-proto", "https")
|
|
.send({
|
|
allowedJoinTypes: "human",
|
|
humanRole: "viewer",
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(201);
|
|
expect(res.body.companyName).toBe("Acme Robotics");
|
|
expect(res.body.invitePath).toMatch(/^\/invite\/pcp_invite_/);
|
|
expect(res.body.inviteUrl).toMatch(/^https:\/\/paperclip\.example\/invite\/pcp_invite_/);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it.each(["operator", "viewer"])("allows Operators to invite %s members", async (humanRole) => {
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp("session"))
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/invites")
|
|
.send({ allowedJoinTypes: "human", humanRole });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(201);
|
|
expect(insertMock).toHaveBeenCalledOnce();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("allows the default Operator role for mixed human and agent invitations", async () => {
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp("session"))
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/invites")
|
|
.send({ allowedJoinTypes: "both" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(201);
|
|
expect(canUserMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith("company-1", "inviter-1", "joins:approve");
|
|
expect(canUserMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith("company-1", "inviter-1", "users:manage_permissions");
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("does not require human membership permissions for agent-only invitations", async () => {
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp("session"))
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/invites")
|
|
.send({ allowedJoinTypes: "agent", humanRole: "owner" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(201);
|
|
expect(canUserMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith("company-1", "inviter-1", "joins:approve");
|
|
expect(canUserMock).not.toHaveBeenCalledWith("company-1", "inviter-1", "users:manage_permissions");
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it.each(["admin", "owner"])("prevents Operators from inviting %s members", async (humanRole) => {
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp("session"))
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/invites")
|
|
.send({ allowedJoinTypes: "human", humanRole });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
|
|
expect(insertMock).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
expect(logActivityMock).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("requires member-permission management to invite Owners even when join approval is allowed", async () => {
|
|
canUserMock.mockImplementation(async (_companyId, _userId, permissionKey) =>
|
|
permissionKey === "users:invite" || permissionKey === "joins:approve",
|
|
);
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp("session"))
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/invites")
|
|
.send({ allowedJoinTypes: "human", humanRole: "owner" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
|
|
expect(canUserMock).toHaveBeenCalledWith("company-1", "inviter-1", "users:manage_permissions");
|
|
expect(insertMock).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("allows Owner invitations when both membership permissions are granted", async () => {
|
|
canUserMock.mockResolvedValue(true);
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp("session"))
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/invites")
|
|
.send({ allowedJoinTypes: "human", humanRole: "owner" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(201);
|
|
expect(canUserMock).toHaveBeenCalledWith("company-1", "inviter-1", "joins:approve");
|
|
expect(canUserMock).toHaveBeenCalledWith("company-1", "inviter-1", "users:manage_permissions");
|
|
});
|
|
});
|