mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-01 06:42:06 +01:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
169 lines
6.1 KiB
TypeScript
169 lines
6.1 KiB
TypeScript
import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
|
|
import {
|
|
evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience,
|
|
issueThreadInteractionAttentionAgentAllowed,
|
|
} from "./issue-thread-interaction-resolution.js";
|
|
|
|
const agent = { type: "agent", agentId: "agent-1", runId: "run-1" } as const;
|
|
|
|
function interaction(overrides: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
|
|
return {
|
|
createdByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
createdByUserId: null,
|
|
sourceRunId: "run-1",
|
|
addresseeAgentId: null,
|
|
effectiveResolverPolicy: "anyone",
|
|
...overrides,
|
|
};
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
describe("issue-thread interaction resolver audience", () => {
|
|
it.each([
|
|
"suggest_tasks",
|
|
"ask_user_questions",
|
|
"request_confirmation",
|
|
"request_checkbox_confirmation",
|
|
"request_item_verdicts",
|
|
])("allows the creator and creating run under anyone for %s", () => {
|
|
expect(evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: agent,
|
|
interaction: interaction(),
|
|
})).toMatchObject({ allowed: true, effectiveResolverPolicy: "anyone", reason: "allow_anyone" });
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it.each([
|
|
["creator agent", { createdByAgentId: "agent-1", sourceRunId: "run-other" }],
|
|
["creating run", { createdByAgentId: "agent-other", sourceRunId: "run-1" }],
|
|
])("excludes the %s only when not_creator is effective", (_name, creator) => {
|
|
const decision = evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: agent,
|
|
interaction: interaction({ ...creator, effectiveResolverPolicy: "not_creator" }),
|
|
});
|
|
expect(decision).toMatchObject({ allowed: false, code: "interaction_creator_excluded" });
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("enforces an explicit addressee", () => {
|
|
const decision = evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: agent,
|
|
interaction: interaction({ addresseeAgentId: "agent-2" }),
|
|
});
|
|
expect(decision).toMatchObject({ allowed: false, code: "interaction_addressee_mismatch" });
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("requires run attribution for agents", () => {
|
|
const decision = evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: { type: "agent", agentId: "agent-1", runId: null },
|
|
interaction: interaction(),
|
|
});
|
|
expect(decision).toMatchObject({
|
|
allowed: false,
|
|
status: 422,
|
|
code: "interaction_run_attribution_required",
|
|
});
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("allows a server-derived restriction to narrow but never widen the audience", () => {
|
|
expect(evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: agent,
|
|
interaction: interaction({ createdByAgentId: "agent-other", sourceRunId: "run-other" }),
|
|
additionalRestriction: "human_only",
|
|
})).toMatchObject({ allowed: false, code: "interaction_human_only" });
|
|
|
|
expect(evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: agent,
|
|
interaction: interaction({ effectiveResolverPolicy: "human_only" }),
|
|
additionalRestriction: "anyone",
|
|
})).toMatchObject({ allowed: false, code: "interaction_human_only" });
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("intersects human-only and creator-separation restrictions", () => {
|
|
expect(evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: { type: "user", userId: "user-1" },
|
|
interaction: interaction({
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
createdByUserId: "user-1",
|
|
effectiveResolverPolicy: "not_creator",
|
|
}),
|
|
additionalRestriction: "human_only",
|
|
})).toMatchObject({ allowed: false, code: "interaction_creator_excluded" });
|
|
|
|
expect(evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: { type: "user", userId: "user-1" },
|
|
interaction: interaction({
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
createdByUserId: "user-1",
|
|
effectiveResolverPolicy: "human_only",
|
|
}),
|
|
additionalRestriction: "not_creator",
|
|
})).toMatchObject({ allowed: false, code: "interaction_creator_excluded" });
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("excludes the review requester when a review card has null creator columns", () => {
|
|
const restriction = {
|
|
policy: "not_creator",
|
|
excludedActor: { type: "user", id: "review-requester" },
|
|
source: "issue_review",
|
|
} as const;
|
|
expect(evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: { type: "user", userId: "review-requester" },
|
|
interaction: interaction({
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
createdByUserId: null,
|
|
sourceRunId: null,
|
|
}),
|
|
additionalRestriction: restriction,
|
|
})).toMatchObject({
|
|
allowed: false,
|
|
code: "review_policy_denied",
|
|
details: {
|
|
policy: "not_creator",
|
|
allowedActor: "writer_other_than_review_requester",
|
|
},
|
|
});
|
|
expect(evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: { type: "user", userId: "peer-reviewer" },
|
|
interaction: interaction({
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
createdByUserId: null,
|
|
sourceRunId: null,
|
|
}),
|
|
additionalRestriction: restriction,
|
|
})).toMatchObject({ allowed: true, effectiveResolverPolicy: "not_creator" });
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("keeps governed actions independently human-only", () => {
|
|
const decision = evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: agent,
|
|
interaction: interaction(),
|
|
governedAction: true,
|
|
});
|
|
expect(decision).toMatchObject({ allowed: false, code: "interaction_governed_action_denied" });
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("preserves legacy inherited board_or_agents creator separation", () => {
|
|
const decision = evaluateIssueThreadInteractionResolverAudience({
|
|
actor: agent,
|
|
interaction: interaction({
|
|
effectiveResolverPolicy: "board_or_agents",
|
|
resolverPolicyProvenance: "legacy_inherited_restriction",
|
|
}),
|
|
});
|
|
expect(decision).toMatchObject({ allowed: false, code: "interaction_creator_excluded" });
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("derives agent attention ownership from the same effective audience", () => {
|
|
expect(issueThreadInteractionAttentionAgentAllowed({
|
|
agentId: "agent-1",
|
|
interaction: interaction(),
|
|
})).toBe(true);
|
|
expect(issueThreadInteractionAttentionAgentAllowed({
|
|
agentId: "agent-1",
|
|
interaction: interaction({ effectiveResolverPolicy: "not_creator" }),
|
|
})).toBe(false);
|
|
expect(issueThreadInteractionAttentionAgentAllowed({
|
|
agentId: "agent-2",
|
|
interaction: interaction({ effectiveResolverPolicy: "human_only" }),
|
|
})).toBe(false);
|
|
});
|
|
});
|