mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 19:35:13 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
d64cb7be52
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent settings select an authorized AI account independently of the harness and model. > - Multiple accounts can have the same provider name. > - The account picker and legacy adoption dialog showed only that name. > - Operators could not distinguish a personal API key from a shared subscription during credential repair. > - This pull request shows the existing sign-in method, sharing scope, and available account identity before selection and adoption. > - Operators can select the intended account while the existing access and validation checks remain effective. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14970 for the shared account selection control. No duplicate account-identity repair was found. **What happened?** Two authorized OpenAI accounts appeared as identical `OpenAI` choices. The adoption dialog repeated that ambiguous name. The list response already contained the account method, scope, and identity, but the UI omitted them. **Expected behavior** An operator can distinguish a personal API key from a company-shared subscription and confirm the selected account before saving. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Make a personal OpenAI API-key account and a shared OpenAI subscription available to an agent. Give both the name `OpenAI`. 2. Open Harness / Runtime and choose a managed connection for a legacy agent. 3. Inspect the two choices and the adoption confirmation. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master `a1f77821b9cd5c9c846fdf7a0fa5cc620ad2b6bb`. **Deployment mode** Hosted staging and the source UI regression. ## What Changed - Show the sign-in method, personal/shared scope, and available account or owner identity in connection labels. - Use the same label in the selected value and legacy adoption confirmation. Match the confirmation to both the connection and grant. Wrap dropdown choices so narrow screens retain the account identity, and expose the full selected label in the trigger title. - Add a behavioral regression with duplicate provider names, exact grant selection, and disabled unavailable accounts. - Update affected Storybook interaction selectors, the account guide, and the agent verification recipe. ## Verification - Before the fix, the new regression fails because duplicate accounts have no distinguishing metadata. The other 13 field tests pass. - After the fix, all 67 tests in `ui/src/components/ai-connections` pass. The regression selects the exact personal grant and keeps the unavailable option disabled. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass locally. The full `pnpm test:run` command was stopped after embedded PostgreSQL failed to initialize after five attempts in an unrelated native-runtime suite. Its log is retained. Current-head CI partitions must establish full test coverage. - Token gates, map checks, Storybook catalog checks, and all 30 map/catalog contract tests pass. - In local Chrome, the existing production-component Storybook dropdown shows method and scope. Its nine interaction steps pass, as do all 19 steps in the new-agent connection-modes story. At a 320-pixel preview width, two shared OpenAI subscriptions show their distinct account identities in full, including during keyboard selection. These fixtures do not establish provider authentication. - Separately, the staging credential-repair workflow validated an existing authorized shared OpenAI connection, persisted the agent binding across reload, and resumed the original task into real provider/tool execution. This configuration recovery does not deploy this UI patch or establish task completion. - All CI completes on final head `a283bda2ad2f026f4f3c0fee03bf2962b0ad6e02`: 55 successful checks, the neutral Paperclip review, and two intentionally skipped Storybook checks; no pending or failed checks. This includes the partitioned tests, typecheck, build, runner suites, canary, and eight browser shards. Greptile and Paperclip review both rate this exact head 5/5 with no unresolved findings. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40338613167). - The review's selected-trigger truncation finding is fixed in the final head. Its title assertion failed before the fix, and all 67 account-selection tests, UI typecheck, and token gates pass afterward. ## Risks - Labels are longer and can truncate in narrow selected-value controls; the trigger title exposes the complete label. Dropdown choices wrap, and the adoption dialog uses the complete label. - The UI uses existing authorized account metadata. It adds no credential reads, access grants, provider fallback, or account selection policy. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6). The exact serving model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used code editing, terminal tests, and browser tools. ## 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>