Apolinario RatioandApolinarioRatio 7787106e5c fix board key issue writes across assignees (#9025) ...

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Board users and board API keys coordinate agents by commenting on
and updating issues.
> - `issue:comment` and `issue:mutate` are intentionally null-mapped
authorization actions, so they need explicit same-company fallback
handling.
> - Same-company board-key writes worked for unassigned or same-actor
issues but failed for issues assigned to another agent.
> - That blocked cross-agent coordination because a board key could not
comment on or patch another agent's issue even inside the same company.
> - This pull request adds the missing board-member issue-write fallback
while keeping viewers denied and sparse service calls fail-closed.
> - The benefit is that non-viewer board members can coordinate agent
work across assignees without restoring broad instance-admin elevation.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public GitHub issue exists. Duplicate search performed:

- `gh search prs --repo paperclipai/paperclip "board key issue mutate"`
returned only this PR.
- `gh search issues --repo paperclipai/paperclip "board key
authorization boundary"` returned no issues.

Bug description:

### What happened

Same-company board-key actors received `403 "Issue is outside this
actor's authorization boundary"` when posting comments or patching
issues assigned to another agent.

### Expected behavior

Active same-company non-viewer board members can comment on and mutate
issues in their company, regardless of agent assignee; viewer members
remain denied.

### Steps to reproduce

Authenticate as a board API key for an active non-viewer company member,
then `POST /api/issues/{id}/comments` or `PATCH /api/issues/{id}`
against an issue assigned to a different agent in the same company.

### Paperclip version or commit

Observed against the current published 2026.626.0 package line and fixed
against current `master`.

### Deployment mode

Authenticated/tailnet board-key access.

## What Changed

- Added a board-actor fallback for `issue:comment` and `issue:mutate` in
`server/src/services/authorization.ts`.
- Restricted that fallback to fully contextualized issue resources with
issue id, status, and explicit assignee fields so sparse service calls
still fail closed.
- Allowed active same-company non-viewer board memberships and denied
viewer memberships for these issue-write actions.
- Added regression coverage for non-viewer board-key comment/mutate on
an issue assigned to another agent.
- Added regression coverage for viewer denial on both `issue:comment`
and `issue:mutate`.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts` passed: 35/35.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed.
- `git diff --check` passed.

## Risks

Low-to-moderate authorization risk because this changes issue-write
access. The scope is constrained to active same-company board
memberships, excludes viewers, and requires route-shaped issue context
before granting access. Cross-company access and sparse/null-mapped
calls continue to fail closed.

> 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

OpenAI Codex coding agent using GPT-5-class reasoning with local shell,
GitHub CLI, and test execution tools in an OpenClaw/Codex environment.

## 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
- [ ] 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

Co-authored-by: ApolinarioRatio <ApolinarioRatio@users.noreply.github.com>

2026-08-13 10:14:05 -07:00

..

scripts

…

src

fix board key issue writes across assignees (#9025)

2026-08-13 10:14:05 -07:00

CHANGELOG.md

…

package.json

build(deps): bump @aws-sdk/client-s3 from 3.1075.0 to 3.1106.0 (#11315)

2026-08-13 10:09:00 -07:00

tsconfig.json

…

vitest.config.ts

fix(test): stop flaky server-suite afterAll hook timeouts (#10024)

2026-07-22 11:51:30 -07:00