mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-08 01:57:31 +01:00
4ea53f9eb5
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Agents and the board read task workspace files through the
`/api/issues/:issueId/file-resources/*` routes
> - Clients can identify a task by its UUID or by its human identifier,
for example `ABC-230`
> - The issues router changes identifiers to UUIDs, but the
file-resources router does not
> - Thus an identifier goes into a `uuid` comparison, Postgres rejects
the query, and the route returns 500
> - This pull request resolves identifiers in the file-resources router
and returns 404 for malformed ids
> - The benefit is that identifier links work, and bad ids give a
correct 404 and no server error
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A request to `GET /api/issues/ABC-230/file-resources/list` returned 500.
The server log showed `invalid input syntax for type uuid` from
`workspaceFileResourceService.getIssue`. Sentry recorded this error on
hosted staging.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a task that has an identifier, for example `ABC-1`.
2. Send `GET /api/issues/ABC-1/file-resources/list?workspace=project`.
3. The server returns 500. The same request with the task UUID returns
200.
**Expected behavior**
The route accepts the identifier, as the other `/api/issues/:id` routes
do. An unknown or malformed id returns 404.
## What Changed
- Added `resolveIssueId` to `WorkspaceFileResourceService`. It changes a
task identifier to the task UUID. It does not check visibility.
`getIssue` still does the privacy-scoped read.
- Added a `router.param("issueId")` handler to the file-resources
router. It calls `resolveIssueId`, the same as the issues router does
for its routes.
- `getIssue` now returns 404 before the query when the id is not a UUID.
This stops the Postgres cast error for all callers.
- Added a regression test for identifier, lowercase identifier, private
task, unknown identifier, and malformed id on the `content`, `list`, and
`availability` routes.
- Updated the test service fakes with the new method.
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts
src/__tests__/file-resources-git-scan-load.test.ts` in `server/`: 55
passed.
- Without the source change, the new test fails with `expected 200 "OK",
got 500 "Internal Server Error"`. This reproduces the production error.
- I did not run a full local `tsc` because the sandbox did not have
sufficient memory. CI runs the typecheck.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change adds one indexed lookup on `issues.identifier`
(unique index) only when the path value has the identifier format.
- The identifier lookup does not check visibility. `getIssue` then
applies the privacy-scoped read, so a private or unknown task gives the
same 404 as before. The route does not show if a task exists.
> 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
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, used through Claude
Code with tool use (shell, file edit, test runs).
## 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
- [ ] 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>