mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-01 23:43:16 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
756599e4ea
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can receive project references in normal task and chat messages. > - Remote workspace preparation checks those references before a native run starts. > - A project with no workspace source has no folder to attach. > - The current check rejects that project as an unsupported read-only folder. > - This pull request keeps the project reference and reports the missing source without attaching files. > - Projects with configured sources keep the current remote access restrictions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18403 and #18351. This is a product prerequisite for the hiring journey. It changes no journey code. **What happened?** A native chat run failed before execution when its message referenced an authorized project with zero configured workspaces. The error was `workspace_validation_failed`: “This remote runtime cannot safely provide read-only project folders.” The project had no repository or checkout. The failed QA run and original grade remain preserved. **Expected behavior** Keep the task workspace when a referenced project has no configured source. Report that no project folder was attached. Continue to reject configured cross-project sources that require an unsupported read-only mount. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a native remote task folder with multi-project references enabled. 2. Mention a same-company project that has no configured workspaces in a normal comment. 3. Prepare the run workspace. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `b889ac39b7fbed558c5f4cfbbc2b73c4ca916810` with the real workspace resolver and PostgreSQL migrations. The staging failure was recorded in workflow [41253428446](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/actions/runs/41253428446). ## What Changed - Distinguish authorized project references with a known empty workspace list from configured sources. - Return a resolution warning and failure receipt for an absent source. Do not attach a folder or create a workspace. - Preserve project authorization, company filtering, the disabled remote-source gate, and the read-only restriction for configured sources. - Add real PostgreSQL regression cases and document the reference contract. ## Verification - Causal RED on unchanged `b889`: the metadata-only project case failed with the same read-only error. The real repository negative already passed. - GREEN: eight PostgreSQL cases pass. They cover an absent source with the remote-source switch both on and off, a saved existing workspace, a repository, a configured source without a repository URL, the disabled remote gate, mixed references, and a foreign company. - The existing assembled workspace test also passes: a real read-only project source is rejected before reservation or environment acquisition. Total: 9 selected tests pass; 119 unrelated tests were not selected. - Tests use PostgreSQL 17 and the current source migrations. The local Vitest configuration selects current DB, shared, and Runner sources because the borrowed dependency output predates the remote workspace feature. - Current-source TypeScript checking of both changed TypeScript files and their dependency graph passes. It uses the repository's real Express actor declaration. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` pass. - Canonical reproduction: `pnpm exec vitest run --project server server/src/services/heartbeat/remote-workspace-source.test.ts` with the existing embedded PostgreSQL support or `PAPERCLIP_TEST_POSTGRES_ADMIN_URL` set to a disposable test cluster. - Historical `0f2b` passed all 59 CI checks. A separate non-author manual source audit reported no actionable findings at confidence 4/5; it did not rerun tests or qualify live QA. The official 4/5 review requested a flag-scope test and saved-workspace control. This test-and-documentation update adds both, with production source bytes unchanged. - Current-head canonical [CI 41258109282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41258109282) passed: all 59 checks are terminal (55 success, 3 skipped, 1 neutral), with no failures or pending checks. Build and typecheck passed. The eight-case regression file passed in the canonical Linux server 1/12 lane. Its checkout `6f69ccca70d10e78885b133fb54a80940bf175a5` has parents `b889` and this exact head; its tree equals this head. - Fresh Greptile and official Ponytail assessments each give 5/5 for exact `27660027d12ff31427d611019e90dabfb6d8503a`, with zero unresolved review threads. The separate manual audit remains 4/5. - Live QA remains pending on a reviewed app build. This regression proof does not claim that the hiring journey passed. ## Risks A project source could be added after project hydration. This change uses the same run-preparation source snapshot as the existing authorization and source check. It only permits a positively known empty workspace list. Configured sources, unknown shapes, foreign projects, and existing execution authority keep their current checks. No schema, credentials, provider, model, budget, or filesystem permissions change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The session does not expose a more specific backend model ID or fixed context window. Used reasoning, repository tools, TypeScript and test 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>