mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Instance environments can store provider configuration fields as Paperclip secret references > - Environment save uses secret binding sync to keep persisted config refs aligned with `company_secret_bindings` > - Top-level secret-ref fields such as `apiKey` were not deleted during sync because the cleanup only matched child paths like `apiKey.*` > - Re-saving an environment with the same top-level secret ref could therefore hit the target/path unique constraint and return a 500 > - This pull request makes the sync cleanup include the exact top-level config path before reinserting current refs > - The benefit is that saved environment provider configs can be edited repeatedly without duplicate binding failures ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue found in duplicate search for this exact environment secret-binding failure. ### Bug report #### Pre-submission checklist - I searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - I can reproduce this on the current `master` lineage. - I confirmed the error originates in Paperclip secret-binding sync, not the sandbox provider itself. #### What happened? Saving an instance environment whose provider config contains a top-level secret-ref field can fail with a duplicate key error on `company_secret_bindings_target_path_uq`. #### Expected behavior Saving the same environment config repeatedly should update/sync bindings idempotently. #### Steps to reproduce 1. Create or edit an instance environment with a provider config that has a top-level secret-ref field such as `apiKey`. 2. Save the environment. 3. Save the environment again without moving that field under a nested object. 4. The second save can attempt to insert a duplicate binding for the same target/path. #### Paperclip version or commit Observed on local dev from current `master` lineage before this fix. #### Deployment mode Local dev (pnpm dev), authenticated private mode. #### Installation method Built from source (pnpm dev / pnpm build). #### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core bug). #### Database mode Embedded local Postgres. #### Access context Board (human operator) environment settings save. #### Relevant logs or output The server returned a 500 after Postgres rejected a duplicate `company_secret_bindings` row for the same environment target and `apiKey` config path. Secret values and local paths are intentionally omitted. #### Privacy checklist I reviewed the PR description for private instance links, local paths, API keys, tokens, and company-specific secrets. ## What Changed - Updated `syncSecretRefsForTarget()` so prefix cleanup removes both the exact top-level config path and nested child paths. - Added a regression test that syncs an environment top-level `apiKey` secret ref repeatedly, then replaces it and verifies only one binding remains. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Local diff scan for internal issue links, local paths, bearer/session tokens, and obvious secret literals returned no matches. - GitHub duplicate searches for related environment secret-binding issues/PRs returned no matches. ## Risks Low risk. The change only broadens the existing target/path cleanup used before reinserting secret refs. It preserves the existing child-path cleanup behavior and adds the missing exact-path case. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via the `codex_local` Paperclip adapter. Tool-using coding-agent session with shell, git, and repository-edit capabilities. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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>