mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-25 09:41:04 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
0eb2c964a7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent owners configure the harness and computer used for that work. > - A legacy runner upgrade must first qualify an unverified sandbox. > - The upgrade called an instance-admin probe, so a company owner with agent configuration permission received HTTP 403. > - This pull request qualifies the saved computer through the agent's existing configuration authorization. > - Company owners can complete the upgrade while general instance environment management stays restricted. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17361. Related: #17122. **What happened?** Upgrade runner displayed for an existing Claude agent on a Daytona Paperclip Computer. Clicking it returned “Instance admin access required” for a cloud company owner. The agent remained on the legacy runner. **Expected behavior** A caller permitted to update the agent can qualify that agent's saved computer and upgrade. Instance-admin access is not required for this agent-scoped operation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in as a cloud company owner with `agents:configure` and no instance-admin role. 2. Open an existing legacy Claude agent on an unqualified Daytona snapshot. 3. Select Upgrade runner. ## What Changed - Add `POST /api/agents/{id}/qualify-runner` with the existing `agent_config:update` guard. - Reuse the server's effective environment resolver. The submitted environment ID only detects stale state; it cannot select a different computer. - Preserve company binding checks, check binding again at lease acquisition, and record agent-scoped audit activity. - Return qualification status and the lease receipt without instance-level provider metadata or raw provider errors. - Use the new endpoint for the existing-agent upgrade. Keep the generic environment probe restricted to instance admins. - Disable Upgrade runner when an unsaved computer change resolves to a different target, with a save-first explanation. Other draft settings still accompany an upgrade. - Add real-database authorization regression tests and update the API contract and access maps. ## Verification - Red: the existing UI called the instance-wide probe and failed the new agent-scoped call assertions in eight upgrade cases. - Green: 349 related route, provider qualification, runner selection, and UI tests passed. - Green: 12 authorization cases passed with real PostgreSQL, real HTTP routes, real saved role grants, and a simulated provider boot. They cover the cloud owner, removed grants, foreign agent/computer, inherited targets, stale target, invalid body, archived/local target, redacted failure, audit scope, and unchanged agent settings. - Review regression: two cases first reproduced the enabled upgrade button after an unsaved computer change; both now pass, along with all 168 related UI tests. Qualified/unqualified computers and restoring the saved selection are covered. - All 26 OpenAPI cases passed; the 12 real-database authorization cases also passed after rebase. - The host exhausted PostgreSQL semaphores. For the 12 cases, a temporary local-only setup used disposable PostgreSQL 18 in Docker instead of the embedded database launcher. The committed tests use the normal embedded database helper. No authorization decisions were mocked. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, map validation, module-boundary validation, and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted but did not establish a full local pass: the host could not start embedded PostgreSQL clusters. All current-head CI gates passed, including the full suite in CI. The commitperclip review workflow timed out before reporting any executed steps on its first attempt and passed on one retry. - Fresh staging acceptance remains pending deployment. Verify persisted native configuration and a successful runtime test on the existing Daytona computer after merge. Earlier live Daytona proof from #17361 is separate evidence. ## Risks - Qualification can start a fresh, temporary sandbox. It uses the existing probe lifecycle and cleanup contract. - The new path must remain scoped to the saved agent and its company. Denial and redaction tests cover that boundary. General instance probe authorization is unchanged. - No migration, role change, credential change, or automatic agent upgrade is included. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The exact deployed model variant and context-window size were 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>