mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
6be71028ad
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work through a control-plane web server.
> - A replacement web server needs shared durable data and the original
signing identity.
> - Existing enrollment exports that identity only after a global drain
and offline migration.
> - Online enrollment needs a separate preparation operation while agent
work continues.
> - This change adds a purpose-bound Cloud control operation with
existing data and key owners.
> - The result is an audited preparation receipt, with no permission to
stop agents or detach storage.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #19038. Refs #19024.
**What are you trying to improve?**
Allow Cloud to prepare an already migrated tenant for volume removal
without the offline migrator or a global-idle gate.
**What problem does this solve?**
Cloud must preserve the original decision key before starting a
replacement with static ephemeral mode. A tenant session must never gain
key-export authority.
**What would the improvement look like?**
A fresh exact-action Cloud assertion obtains a private, deployment-bound
preparation receipt. Unfinished durable-data migration and invalid
replacement configuration block export.
## What Changed
- Add the signed `ephemeral-enrollment:prepare` control action and a
strict UUID-only POST route.
- Check existing durable-data eligibility and ephemeral configuration
before reading the original key. Never create a missing key.
- Audit only public preparation metadata. Keep HTTP diagnostics
secret-sensitive and the response non-cacheable.
- Bind the receipt to the attempt, stack, build commit, Railway
deployment, time, static mode and key digest.
- Always return `enrollmentReady: false`. Cloud still needs to arm a
replacement, verify old writers have stopped, repeat eligibility and
qualify native handoff before detaching the retained volume.
## Verification
- PASS: 80 focused tests across the preparation owner, signed route,
existing Cloud control, HTTP privacy and OpenAPI route coverage.
- PASS: 2 real PostgreSQL cases. Concurrent copies of one signed request
export once; the durable receipt still rejects reuse after clearing the
process fence. Normal run admission before skill pins is allowed;
missing durable skill installation remains blocked.
- Genuine prepatch RED: the same two PostgreSQL cases exported twice and
rejected ordinary admission. The fixed owner was restored automatically
after the comparison.
- PASS: server TypeScript check with workspace dependencies built.
- Fixed the first CI route-coverage failure by declaring this private
control endpoint in the existing explicit OpenAPI exclusion registry.
- Initial local HTTP execution lacked sandbox socket permission; the
reviewed run passed. Initial PostgreSQL fixtures enabled durable files
too late and reused an issue prefix; those fixture defects were
corrected before the red/green comparison.
- All required CI gates pass on
5346721847. Fresh Greptile review is 5/5
and all review threads are resolved. No deployment, volume detachment,
admission change or agent stop is performed by this PR.
## Risks
- The private response contains the original signing key. Only a fresh
stack-bound assertion for this exact action can obtain it. The Cloud
consumer must pass it directly to its existing vault owner and must not
expose it through admin responses or registry metadata.
- Eligibility is an observation. It cannot replace static writer
restrictions or qualified ownership handoff. This PR deliberately
supplies no detach or readiness authorization.
- Cloud transition integration is still required. This PR alone does not
enroll an instance.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, code execution and browser
tools. The host does not expose the exact serving model ID or
context-window size.
## 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>