mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 19:28:46 +01:00
Michael NguyenandPaperclip
58d1b21098
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their service access.
> - Each personal connection belongs to one user.
> - Setup can recover an archived connection by its name and provider.
> - A fresh setup can therefore select another user's old identity and
fail its owner check.
> - This change creates a separate connection for fresh setup after
personal archival.
> - Explicit reconnect still requires the existing owner and preserves
its history.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A fresh GitHub setup can return 403 after a personal connection with the
same name was archived. The request does not include a reconnect target.
Setup still selects the archived identity by name and provider.
**Expected behavior**
Fresh setup creates a separate personal identity. It leaves the archived
connection, credentials, grants, and activity unchanged. Explicit
reconnect rejects a different user.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a personal GitHub connection in a test company.
2. Archive that connection and its application.
3. As another authenticated member, start fresh personal setup with the
same name and provider.
4. Observe the owner-check failure before this change.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Base: db9be4c5a. Tests use isolated database and HTTP fixtures.
**Deployment mode**
Authenticated. The legacy owner can be a local board identity.
## What Changed
- Exclude implicitly recovered archived personal connections from fresh
setup.
- Use the existing company-scoped name allocator to create a separate
application and connection.
- Test three owners: a legacy board identity, another user, and the
current user.
- Check credential isolation, unchanged archived records and activity,
missing-key rejection, and explicit reconnect denial.
- Keep managed revival and generic MCP rollback/reconnect fixtures on
explicit reconnect targets.
- Verify generic personal URL setup creates an independent identity and
preserves the archived records.
- Document fresh setup and reconnect behavior.
## Verification
- Final head: `96184e3179aab2eeb88df87d442691741a4875a2`. Full CI
recovered and completed successfully: [run 41752164958, attempt
2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41752164958/attempts/2).
PR rollup: 53 successful checks, 3 skipped, none failing or pending.
Typecheck, build, all server shards, Runner lanes, and E2E gates pass.
- Exact-head Greptile: 5/5, zero inline comments or review threads.
Independent engineering/security reviews approved the production
implementation; engineering approved the test-only follow-up. Browser
acceptance review approved with the timing qualification below.
- Final-head local generic MCP suite: 84/84 passed (23.26 s); server
typecheck passed. Reviewer independently reran the three changed
scenarios: 3/3 passed (15.74 s).
- Production head `587631230`: local tool-access suite 504/504,
recursive typecheck, and full build passed. Broad local checks were not
repeated for the test-only delta. Full local `pnpm test:run` remains
incomplete after interruption during the first chat shard; no
full-local-suite pass is claimed.
- Initial full CI at `587631230` failed three generic MCP fixtures that
still relied on implicit archived personal recovery. All three
reproduced locally (15.01 s). The test-only follow-up gives owner
reconnect/rollback scenarios explicit targets and verifies independent
fresh URL setup without relaxing their assertions. Corrected server
shard 12/12 passes on final head. The unfinished earlier run was
cancelled after the follow-up push.
- Initial current-head E2E shard 3/8 failed a 5000 ms task-heading wait
at `tests/e2e/cloud-auth.spec.ts:46` (40 passed, one failed). Its
screenshot/accessibility snapshot contains the expected heading. The
single authorized no-code rerun passed 41/41 with zero test retries,
including all URL, handoff, and login-form checks. The first-heading
assertion took 3774 ms on rerun. Both attempts tested the same merge
commit for this PR head. These observations support a timing concern;
the original cause remains unknown. The unchanged Cloud-auth path does
not invoke archived-connection setup. Recovery is established; an
infrastructure cause is not. If it recurs, capture an instrumented
first-navigation trace and compare an unchanged baseline under
comparable conditions.
- PR remains draft. Merge and deployment are outside this request.
Synthetic provider/browser fixtures do not prove live GitHub
authorization or a deployed fix.
## Risks
- Fresh setup after personal archival now creates a new ID and a
suffixed name, including for the same owner. Clients must supply an
explicit target to reconnect the old identity.
- The guard applies to all personal gallery connections, not only
GitHub.
- No schema migration is required. Explicit owner checks remain in
place.
- Security review approved the unchanged production implementation.
Merge and deployment are outside this change request.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The runtime does not expose a more specific
model snapshot or context window. Used reasoning, code editing, and
shell 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 merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>