mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
99a9de9940
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Assistant connections let people use their organization from another assistant. > - Setup begins with an invitation and returns to a list of connected assistants. > - Client-only labels obscure the authorizing person, while revoked rows clutter that list. > - This pull request shows the person’s avatar, names connections by owner and client, and hides revoked rows. > - It also shortens the copied invitation while keeping the approval instructions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #14933 and #15380. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Invitation copy and assistant connection management, in the organization’s Connections screen and the account-wide management page. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: shared MCP connection types, server profile projection, UI and Storybook. **Current behavior** Connections are labeled only with a client name such as “Codex.” Revoked connections remain visible. The invitation includes an extra sentence about agent identity. **Proposed behavior** Show the authorizing person’s avatar and use names such as “Dotta’s Codex connection.” Hide revoked rows after successful revocation and when loading retained revoked grants. Failed revocation leaves the connection visible. Remove the extra identity sentence from invitation copy. **Reason and benefit** Make connection identity clear and keep the list focused on usable connections. **Breaking changes** The connection response adds optional `user` metadata with name and image. Older servers remain usable. Names and revoked-row visibility change in the UI; OAuth client identity, authorization and audit retention remain unchanged. ## What Changed - Shorten the shared invitation text. - Project the authorizing person’s name and avatar through the user-scoped connection endpoint, without returning email or credentials. - Reuse the existing Identity component and owner naming conventions across the connection page, catalog card and account-wide list. - Hide revoked grants and remove a successfully revoked row from the shared cache, even if the subsequent refresh fails. - Update documentation, regression tests and production-page Storybook fixtures and revocation journeys. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm build-storybook` and `pnpm check:token-gates` pass. Final UI type checks also pass. - Focused consent and connection UI tests: 31 pass, including company filtering, legacy metadata, custom client names, user-initial fallbacks, failed revocation, retained revoked rows and refresh failure after successful revocation. - Existing MCP regression suite: 6 pass; 71 database checks are skipped locally because embedded PostgreSQL cannot start on this machine. The added database check verifies user-profile isolation and retained revocation history; CI runs these checks. - Browser verification with Storybook fixtures: owner avatar and name render; revocation removes the selected row in both production pages, leaves other connections visible, and restores the empty state after the last revocation. - All 54 current-head CI checks pass, with two optional Storybook jobs skipped. CI includes database, browser, runner, typecheck, build and clean-install canary coverage. - Greptile reviewed commit `1368d79e1066b418712224378d89d64c2b11cb86`: 5/5, no actionable findings or unresolved threads. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after complete CI passed. Local database coverage remains unavailable because embedded PostgreSQL cannot start; no full local-suite pass is claimed. ## Risks Low risk. The additive profile field is optional for compatibility. Revoked grants are filtered only from management UI and retained for audit. Revocation failure does not hide an active connection. No authorization scopes, token handling or schema changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with code editing, command execution and browser verification. The exact deployment ID and context-window size 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>