Files
PaperClipAI/ui/src/components/InteractionAudienceLine.tsx
T
DottaandPaperclip 10d0555189 fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision
record.
> - Resolver routes used different authorization rules.
> - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with
normal issue access.
> - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction.
> - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy
evaluator.
> - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and
company isolation.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Fixes: #8087

Refs: #7403

Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change
keeps human-only review as an explicit policy.

**What happened?**

Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still
required board access.

This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see
the same problem without board identity.

**Expected behavior**

Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract.

The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It
must also apply all normal governance controls.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent.
2. Resolve it with another authorized agent.
3. Observe the board-only denial.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The problem exists on `master` before this change.

**Deployment mode**

Local development with `pnpm dev`.

## What Changed

- Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`.
- Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind.
- Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task
watchdog scope.
- Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit.
- Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction
data.
- Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board
UI.
- Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression
fixtures.
- Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior.
- Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior
runs.

## Product Rules

- An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the
next action.
- `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond.
- `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator.
- `human_only` requires an authorized person.
- A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the
audience.
- These controls cannot widen the audience.
- A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent.
- A task watchdog does not receive board authority.
- An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue
action limit.
- Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions.
- The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm exec vitest run
packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts`
- The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice.
- The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing
provenance.
- The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks.
- The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected.
- Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments.

## Risks

- New interaction writes use `anyone` by default.
- Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need
stricter review.
- Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human
restrictions.
- Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery.
- Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit.
- The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind.
- Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these
rules.

> This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in
`ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID
or context window.

The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test
execution.

## 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the
required labels
- [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket id
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented the risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00

77 lines
3.1 KiB
TypeScript

import { Users } from "lucide-react";
import type { InteractionAudienceDescription } from "../lib/interaction-audience";
import { cn } from "../lib/utils";
/**
* Who may resolve an interaction, stated before anyone acts.
*
* One component for both surfaces that ask for a decision: the full
* issue-thread card (`variant="card"`) and a collapsed attention row sitting
* directly above compact Accept/Reject buttons (`variant="compact"`,
* PAP-17287). The compact form trades the full sentence for a glanceable clause
* and hands the long form to the title attribute, so the two surfaces can never
* describe the same policy differently.
*
* Presentation only: the description is derived from the server's evaluated
* audience, and nothing here enables or disables a control. The resolution
* routes re-check authority at use time.
*/
export function InteractionAudienceLine({
audience,
variant = "card",
className,
}: {
audience: InteractionAudienceDescription;
variant?: "card" | "compact";
className?: string;
}) {
const compact = variant === "compact";
return (
<div
className={cn(
"flex items-start gap-2 text-xs leading-5 text-muted-foreground",
compact ? "min-w-0" : "max-w-3xl",
className,
)}
data-testid="interaction-audience"
data-audience-policy={audience.policy}
data-audience-open={audience.isOpen ? "true" : "false"}
data-audience-variant={variant}
title={compact
? [audience.summary, audience.narrowedNote].filter(Boolean).join(" ")
: undefined}
>
<Users className="mt-0.5 h-3.5 w-3.5 shrink-0" aria-hidden="true" />
{/* The clause names an agent, and an agent name is one unbreakable word.
Without a break the row's `overflow-hidden` shell cuts it mid-word with
no ellipsis, so a reader sees a plausible but *wrong* responder
("Only ReleaseEngineeringPlatformCoordin") and nothing signals the
truncation. Wrapping is the only safe failure mode for a sentence whose
whole job is to name who may act (PAP-17289). */}
<div className="min-w-0 break-words">
{/* The compact form drops the policy badge: its clause already names the
responder, and "Anyone — Anyone can respond" spends a scarce line on
saying one thing twice. The badge stays on the card, where the longer
sentence needs a heading. */}
{compact ? null : (
<>
<span className="font-medium text-foreground">{audience.label}</span>
{" — "}
</>
)}
<span data-testid="interaction-audience-summary">
{compact ? audience.shortSummary : audience.summary}
</span>
{/* The reason an audience is narrower than the requester asked for is
worth a sentence on the card. A collapsed row keeps it in the title
and shows it in full once the row expands. */}
{!compact && audience.narrowedNote ? (
<span className="block" data-testid="interaction-audience-note">
{audience.narrowedNote}
</span>
) : null}
</div>
</div>
);
}