mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-20 06:02:18 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - External agents connect through the shared MCP agent gateway. > - Grok setup gives the operator a one-use code for the authorization page. > - The password field hides the code but does not provide a working copy action. > - The pending approval button names Dot before the agent preview loads. > - This pull request adds explicit code copying and a neutral approval label. > - The operator can review the fixed agent without sending credentials to chat. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16219, #15581, #15414. **What happened?** The Grok setup code is in a read-only password field. Ordinary browser copying does not copy that field. The shared authorization page says “Connect Dot with pairing code” before it knows the invited provider. These defects blocked a watched Grok desktop setup before approval. **Expected behavior** An operator can copy the one-use code with a visible control. The code stays hidden and outside the Bot prompt. The authorization page shows the registered client and the fixed company, agent, permissions, and authorizing person before approval. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Choose New agent, Invite an external agent, and Grok Bot. 2. Save the Bot identity and open Connect access. 3. Try to copy the masked code into the Bot's browser authorization page. 4. Inspect the pending approval action before a valid preview loads. **Paperclip version or commit** The fix starts from master commit2c17d3ca52. **Deployment mode** Cloud. The same UI serves self-hosted instances. ## What Changed - Add Copy code beside the masked Grok pairing field. Reuse CopyText and the shared clipboard fallback, failure feedback, and retry. - Associate the pairing label with its input for keyboard and screen-reader access. - Use Allow agent connection before and after the fixed-agent preview. Keep approval disabled until that preview loads. Align Dot's generated setup prompt and guide with that action. - Add tests for copy failure and retry, a Grok invitation using the Cursor client identity, and unchanged person and Dot connection paths. - Add a waiting-for-authorization Storybook state and record the live qualification blocker in the existing plan. ## Verification - Focused Grok, Dot, and person-connection UI tests: 33 passed. - Repository build: passed. - Token gates: passed. - Storybook catalog: passed; structure only. - Watched Storybook preview: native browser input copied the full synthetic code while the field stayed masked and Continue stayed disabled. This is fixture evidence, not live OAuth or Runner qualification. - Repository typecheck and Storybook build: passed. UI typecheck and production build passed again after the review fix. - Current-head CI: 55 successes, two intentional skips, one neutral result, no unfinished or failed gates. Greptile: 5/5, with the review finding fixed and resolved. Head:1b95218c91. - The additional local aggregate test run is still running. No local aggregate pass is claimed. The required full server, workspace, Runner, browser, and release checks passed in CI for the current head. - After deployment, resume the saved Grok setup, use Copy code, check the fixed agent preview, and finish the real authenticated round trip. ## Risks Copying temporarily places the one-use code on the clipboard. Its existing expiry and one-use checks remain. The authorization endpoint, grant scopes, fixed identity, and disabled-state checks do not change. No persistent secret enters the prompt. Live provider and managed Runner qualification remain incomplete. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used tool calls, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact serving model suffix and context limit are not exposed in this session. ## 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>