mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 10:13:11 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
5a7e740d82
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A saved agent must pass execution configuration checks before it can run. > - Managed AI account selection belongs to the existing company-scoped account service. > - Verification allocated its execution environment before it checked that account. > - A missing default or revoked account could create a sandbox on each retry. > - This pull request checks account selection before allocation and keeps the final check. > - Invalid account settings now fail before they cause avoidable provider work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Saved-agent lifecycle verification allocates a test execution target before `withManagedAiProbe` selects the managed AI account. An unavailable account can cause sandbox creation and cleanup on every retry. **Expected behavior** Check account compatibility, responsible-user access, default selection, grant health and agent eligibility before target allocation. Check current account access again before the real probe. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a saved OpenCode agent with an OpenRouter personal-default binding. 2. Leave that user's OpenRouter default empty, or revoke the selected grant. 3. Let lifecycle verification use a sandbox execution environment. 4. Before this change, verification can allocate the target and then reject the account. After this change, account selection rejects the configuration before allocation. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline `b5bf86ea09042a864b60910f80c8fdf7e64e9ef0`. **Deployment mode** Server with Postgres and a remote execution environment. Tests use disposable local Postgres and a controlled target allocation boundary. Searched public PRs and issues for verification, connection preflight, probes and lifecycle work. No duplicate fix found. Related public issue #16128 concerns credential probing and reauthorization. This change does not alter reauthorization or credential refresh. ## What Changed - Call the existing managed account selector with the resolved adapter and model before allocating a verification execution target. - Keep router resolution, secret handling, final account selection and target release with their existing owners. - Add six Postgres tests and document the saved-agent ordering contract. ## Verification - Focused verification suites: 30 tests passed across two files. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - Full PR CI passed on `ddc0879d46b60310c533e6d3c4b8acdd178d979c`: 54 successful checks and two expected skips. [Workflow evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40033261909). This includes typecheck, tests, build and browser checks. - Apex review: 5/5 on that exact head, clean check, no comments or unresolved threads. Merge state is clean. - Additional local `pnpm test:run` is still running. The complete local suite is not yet a pass claim. - The first focused run passed the missing-default case but failed five setup hooks because fixtures reused a unique company prefix. Each fixture now has a distinct prefix. The complete focused rerun passed. - Tests use real account selection, memberships, grants, personal defaults, encrypted fixture credentials and managed runtime preparation. Only execution-target allocation and the provider probe are controlled boundaries. No live provider request is required. - Tests prove that missing defaults, revoked grants and incompatible models do not allocate a target. A valid account still reaches the managed probe. Revocation during allocation still fails the final account check and releases the target. Probe failure also releases it. - `git diff --check`: passed. Reviewed the diff for secrets and private account data before push. - No hosted login or production deployment is claimed for this follow-up. ## Risks - Adds one read-only account selection to each managed saved-agent verification attempt. The selector can read company accounts and grants. It makes no provider request and creates no execution target. - Final selection stays fresh. A successful preflight does not reserve an account or cache authorization. - Missing configuration still follows the existing durable lifecycle retry schedule. This change prevents needless allocation; it does not remove those database retries. - No schema, scheduler, provider-account choice, capacity or public API changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools and code execution. ## 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>