mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 05:46:59 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
a959e47508
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give agents controlled access to external services. > - Google Chat uses OAuth profiles and reviewed MCP tools. > - Those profiles request membership and read-state access that the supported feature set does not need. > - Removing read-state access also requires us to block unread search filters, including on existing connections. > - This pull request reduces both OAuth methods and enforces the reduced search contract before dispatch. > - Users retain conversation lookup, message history, ordinary search, and approved message sending. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Both Google Chat profiles request membership and read-state scopes. The supported tool set does not include membership listing or read-state updates. Message search still advertises an unread filter. Related work: Refs #12619. **Expected behavior** Managed and customer-owned OAuth request only the scopes needed for supported features. Unsupported unread filters fail clearly before any provider call. Existing cached catalogs and broader grants must not bypass that policy. **Steps to reproduce** Start Google Chat OAuth from either connection method and inspect the requested scopes. Inspect the message-search tool schema, then submit a search with `searchParameters.isUnread` set to true or false. **Paperclip version or commit** The scope change is based on master at `110d176fc`. **Deployment mode** Managed Cloud and self-hosted instances with Google Chat Apps enabled. ## What Changed - Remove `chat.memberships.readonly` and `chat.users.readstate.readonly` from shared profiles and all four Chat connection methods. - Hide unsupported read-state fields and instructions in agent and board Test tool schemas. - Reject explicit unread filters, including false, null, snake-case fields, and encoded filter objects, before provider dispatch. - Recheck previously approved calls and support existing profile-bound and URL-only Chat connections. - Add scope, signed broker request, OAuth URL, allowlist, schema, and dispatch regression tests. - Document coordinated app/broker rollout, existing-grant reconnects, and the remaining deployment checks. ## Verification - All seven focused OAuth and Chat gateway test files pass: 498 tests on the rebased branch. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass, using pinned pnpm 9.15.4. - The complete sharded CI test matrix passes, including general server, Chat, workspace, serialized server, Runner, and all eight browser e2e shards. The duplicate unsharded local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI passed; it did not complete locally. - `git diff --check` passes. - `node scripts/ingest-app-definitions.mjs` succeeds and leaves the branch unchanged. Google Workspace JSON is the durable reviewed input used by the generator. - All current-head CI checks pass at `7ee755371714dc036fff1c7da844776fee3f2ec1`, including typecheck, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. The generator concern was withdrawn after review of the source and regeneration evidence. - No production deployment or live Google consent test was performed. After coordinated deployment, verify reduced consent scopes, normal search/history, message sending, and rejection of unread filters. ## Risks - Coordinate deployment with the companion Cloud broker scope change. Mixed versions can reject exact-scope requests. - Existing tokens are not narrowed or revoked. Grants with old scopes need new consent. Do not revoke a shared Google client to migrate one profile. - Explicit unread filters now return an error instead of being sent to Google. Ordinary search and the approved send tool remain available. - No database, UI, lockfile, or workflow changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, a GPT-5-based coding agent, with tool use and code execution. The exact runtime model ID and context window 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>