mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 12:04:41 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
2cd747d1b6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their access to external connections. > - The connection grants screen describes which agents can receive an installation. > - Each candidate currently repeats authorization for every retained installation. > - A company installation makes this work grow with the square of the roster size. > - This pull request checks retained targets once inside the existing service owner. > - The benefit is fewer authorization calls with the same scoped capability results. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The grants GET repeats connection preparation and retained-target checks for each candidate agent. A local 100-agent company-install fixture made 50,300 SQL calls and 10,000 target lookups in one capability-description operation. Open PR searches found no matching capability fan-out fix. **Expected behavior** The description must preserve retained-installation obligations and each candidate's permission. It should evaluate retained targets once per description. Writes must still authorize fresh. **Steps to reproduce** Run the committed benchmark with `--baseline-ref=f6bc653f7f745adaafa26393852fb2f5a99256a4`. It creates disposable synthetic PostgreSQL fixtures and loads the actual pre-fix service from Git. It compares every positional capability, reason, and operation. **Paperclip version or commit** Baseline `f6bc653f7f745adaafa26393852fb2f5a99256a4`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. Local real PostgreSQL proof. No hosted rollout. ## What Changed - Add `describeAgentInstallCapabilities` to connection management. Ordinary authorization and the batch share preparation, target checks, and fallback completion. - Use the batch only for direct saved non-AI connections and board actors. Complex resources, delegated actors, and unusual saved target IDs keep the ordinary evaluator. Fallback consumes the first preparation once. - Replace only the grants route's editable-agent loop. Keep configure/use checks, identity filtering, audience disclosure, and write authority on their existing paths. - Add scoped-grant, retained-target, error-order, freshness, fallback, full HTTP response, and real mutation regression coverage. Add a reproducible benchmark and evidence notes. ## Verification Real PostgreSQL 18.6 Linux Docker, Node 26.4.0. Two warmups and five measured samples per arm, in alternating order. These are service-component measurements with the same SQL-count instrumentation in both arms. They do not measure the whole hosted endpoint. | Fixture | Old median | Batch median | SQL calls old → batch | Target lookups old → batch | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | | 100 agents, company install | 24.753 s | 246.39 ms | 50,300 → 503 | 10,000 → 100 | | 100 agents, partial install | 6.339 s | 236.37 ms | 13,075 → 502 | 2,575 → 100 | | 1 agent, company install | 5.13 ms | 4.82 ms | 8 → 8 | 1 → 1 | All eight fixture shapes and every measured iteration had complete positional equality. One-agent timing ranges overlap. Full ranges, database settings, and limits are in `doc/plans/2026-10-27-connection-grants-batch-verification.md`. - **Passed:** `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`, using pinned pnpm 9.15.4. - **Passed:** 116 focused tests: all 83 connection-management integration cases use real PostgreSQL and HTTP; 33 batch regressions execute real policy over synthetic query transport. The integration cases keep existing database creation, migrations, clients, services, and assembled HTTP server, with disposable Docker PostgreSQL. - **Passed:** complete grants GET parity across six human-role fixtures; real install PUT succeeds before revocation, then fresh GET and actual PUT deny after revocation without changing saved installs. - **Passed:** a real PostgreSQL red/green regression for empty saved target selectors, including candidate-specific decisions and later reached infrastructure faults. - **Passed:** independent old/new evaluator comparisons, including recursive and delegated fallback, run-context reuse, continuation, failure order, and principal/company isolation. - **Local full-suite limit:** `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after native PostgreSQL fixtures could not initialize. An isolated failed native case reproduced that startup error. The host cannot allocate PostgreSQL SysV semaphores, including outside the sandbox. The focused suites use an existing constructor seam to start disposable Docker PostgreSQL. This is not a complete local full-suite pass. - **Passed:** all 16 native-runtime cases that failed to start PostgreSQL on the host, rerun with the disposable Docker provider. The full local workflow remains incomplete. - `git diff --check` passes. Greptile is 5/5 with no actionable findings on final head `41dcf3ae029b6c60999ca6208136399b0af663d0`. All final-head CI gates passed, including the full PR workflow. The two Storybook checks are expected skips because this change has no UI changes. Normal reproduction: ```sh node --import ./server/node_modules/tsx/dist/esm/index.mjs scripts/benchmark-connection-install-capabilities.ts --baseline-ref=f6bc653f7f745adaafa26393852fb2f5a99256a4 cd server pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/connection-install-capabilities.test.ts src/__tests__/connection-management.integration.test.ts ``` ## Risks Retained facts are observed once during one descriptive call. A mid-call revoke or deletion can leave a stale displayed choice. The next description and every mutation or human continuation read fresh authority. The batch returns no reusable authorization context. The bound applies to target evaluations in the eligible shape. Scoped grant payloads and hierarchy reads can still grow inside each policy decision. Complex resources and agent callers keep existing costs. Hosted latency improvement remains unverified. There is no migration, provider protocol change, new worker, persistent cache, or UI contract change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with code editing, execution, and test tools. Design, test, and independent review agents used exact model IDs `gpt-6.1-sol` and `gpt-6-astra` with xhigh reasoning. The host did not expose the primary session's exact model ID or context-window size. ## 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>