2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
import express from "express";
|
|
|
|
|
import request from "supertest";
|
|
|
|
|
import { beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockApprovalService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
list: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
getById: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
create: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
approve: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
reject: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
requestRevision: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
resubmit: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
listComments: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
addComment: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockHeartbeatService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
wakeup: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockIssueApprovalService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
listIssuesForApproval: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
linkManyForApproval: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockSecretService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
normalizeHireApprovalPayloadForPersistence: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockLogActivity = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
|
|
|
|
|
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-14 13:34:52 -05:00
|
|
|
function registerModuleMocks() {
|
|
|
|
|
vi.doMock("../services/index.js", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
approvalService: () => mockApprovalService,
|
|
|
|
|
heartbeatService: () => mockHeartbeatService,
|
|
|
|
|
issueApprovalService: () => mockIssueApprovalService,
|
|
|
|
|
logActivity: mockLogActivity,
|
|
|
|
|
secretService: () => mockSecretService,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
async function createApp(actorOverrides: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
|
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-14 13:34:52 -05:00
|
|
|
const [{ errorHandler }, { approvalRoutes }] = await Promise.all([
|
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
|
|
|
import("../middleware/index.js"),
|
|
|
|
|
import("../routes/approvals.js"),
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
]);
|
2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
const app = express();
|
|
|
|
|
app.use(express.json());
|
|
|
|
|
app.use((req, _res, next) => {
|
|
|
|
|
(req as any).actor = {
|
|
|
|
|
type: "board",
|
|
|
|
|
userId: "user-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyIds: ["company-1"],
|
|
|
|
|
source: "session",
|
|
|
|
|
isInstanceAdmin: false,
|
fix(authz): scope import, approvals, activity, and heartbeat routes (#3315)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and company-scoped control-plane
actions for zero-human companies.
> - This change touches the server authz boundary around company
portability, approvals, activity, and heartbeat-run operations.
> - The vulnerability was that board-authenticated callers could cross
company boundaries or create new companies through import paths without
the same authorization checks enforced elsewhere.
> - Once that gap existed, an attacker could chain it into higher-impact
behavior through agent execution paths.
> - The fix needed to harden every confirmed authorization gap in the
reported chain, not just the first route that exposed it.
> - This pull request adds the missing instance-admin and company-access
checks and adds regression tests for each affected route.
> - The benefit is that cross-company actions and new-company import
flows now follow the same control-plane authorization rules as the rest
of the product.
## What Changed
- Required instance-admin access for `new_company` import preview/apply
flows in `server/src/routes/companies.ts`.
- Required company access before approval decision routes in
`server/src/routes/approvals.ts`.
- Required company access for activity creation and heartbeat-run issue
listing in `server/src/routes/activity.ts`.
- Required company access before heartbeat cancellation in
`server/src/routes/agents.ts`.
- Added regression coverage in the corresponding server route tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Prior verification on the original security patch branch also included
`pnpm build`.
## Risks
- Low code risk: the change is narrow and only adds missing
authorization gates to existing routes.
- Operational risk: the advisory is already public, so this PR should be
merged quickly to minimize the public unpatched window.
- Residual product risk remains around open signup / bootstrap defaults,
which was intentionally left out of this patch because the current
first-user onboarding flow depends on it.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with tool use and local code execution
in the Codex CLI environment.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Forgotten <forgottenrunes@protonmail.com>
2026-04-10 11:55:27 -05:00
|
|
|
...actorOverrides,
|
2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
next();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
app.use("/api", approvalRoutes({} as any));
|
|
|
|
|
app.use(errorHandler);
|
|
|
|
|
return app;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
async function createAgentApp() {
|
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-14 13:34:52 -05:00
|
|
|
const [{ errorHandler }, { approvalRoutes }] = await Promise.all([
|
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
|
|
|
import("../middleware/index.js"),
|
|
|
|
|
import("../routes/approvals.js"),
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
]);
|
2026-04-06 10:36:31 -05:00
|
|
|
const app = express();
|
|
|
|
|
app.use(express.json());
|
|
|
|
|
app.use((req, _res, next) => {
|
|
|
|
|
(req as any).actor = {
|
|
|
|
|
type: "agent",
|
|
|
|
|
agentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
source: "api_key",
|
|
|
|
|
isInstanceAdmin: false,
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
next();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
app.use("/api", approvalRoutes({} as any));
|
|
|
|
|
app.use(errorHandler);
|
|
|
|
|
return app;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
describe("approval routes idempotent retries", () => {
|
|
|
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
vi.resetModules();
|
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
|
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../services/index.js");
|
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-14 13:34:52 -05:00
|
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../routes/approvals.js");
|
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
|
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../routes/authz.js");
|
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-14 13:34:52 -05:00
|
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../middleware/index.js");
|
|
|
|
|
registerModuleMocks();
|
[codex] Stabilize tests and local maintenance assets (#4423)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - A fast-moving control plane needs stable local tests and repeatable
local maintenance tools so contributors can safely split and review work
> - Several route suites needed stronger isolation, Codex manual model
selection needed a faster-mode option, and local browser cleanup missed
Playwright's headless shell binary
> - Storybook static output also needed to be preserved as a generated
review artifact from the working branch
> - This pull request groups the test/local-dev maintenance pieces so
they can be reviewed separately from product runtime changes
> - The benefit is more predictable contributor verification and cleaner
local maintenance without mixing these changes into feature PRs
## What Changed
- Added stable Vitest runner support and serialized route/authz test
isolation.
- Fixed workspace runtime authz route mocks and stabilized
Claude/company-import related assertions.
- Allowed Codex fast mode for manually selected models.
- Broadened the agent browser cleanup script to detect
`chrome-headless-shell` as well as Chrome for Testing.
- Preserved generated Storybook static output from the source branch.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts
src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts`
from `server/` passed: 2 files, 19 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run src/server/codex-args.test.ts --config
vitest.config.ts` from `packages/adapters/codex-local/` passed: 1 file,
3 tests.
- `bash -n scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh &&
scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh --dry` passed; dry-run detected
`chrome-headless-shell` processes without killing them.
- `test -f ui/storybook-static/index.html && test -f
ui/storybook-static/assets/forms-editors.stories-Dry7qwx2.js` passed.
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-test-local-maintenance --
. ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed.
- `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts --config
cli/vitest.config.ts` did not complete in the isolated split worktree
because `paperclipai run` exited during build prep with `TS2688: Cannot
find type definition file for 'react'`; this appears to be caused by the
worktree dependency symlink setup, not the code under test.
- Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Risks
- Medium risk: the stable Vitest runner changes how route/authz tests
are scheduled.
- Generated `ui/storybook-static` files are large and contain minified
third-party output; `git diff --check` reports whitespace inside those
generated assets, so reviewers may choose to drop or regenerate that
artifact before merge.
- No database migrations.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell, git, Paperclip
API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip workspace.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Note: screenshot checklist item is not applicable to source UI behavior;
the included Storybook static output is generated artifact preservation
from the source branch.
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-24 15:11:42 -05:00
|
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks();
|
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.list.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.create.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.approve.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.reject.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.requestRevision.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.resubmit.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.listComments.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.addComment.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockHeartbeatService.wakeup.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssueApprovalService.listIssuesForApproval.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssueApprovalService.linkManyForApproval.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockSecretService.normalizeHireApprovalPayloadForPersistence.mockReset();
|
|
|
|
|
mockLogActivity.mockReset();
|
2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
mockHeartbeatService.wakeup.mockResolvedValue({ id: "wake-1" });
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssueApprovalService.listIssuesForApproval.mockResolvedValue([{ id: "issue-1" }]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockLogActivity.mockResolvedValue(undefined);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("does not emit duplicate approval side effects when approve is already resolved", async () => {
|
fix(authz): scope import, approvals, activity, and heartbeat routes (#3315)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and company-scoped control-plane
actions for zero-human companies.
> - This change touches the server authz boundary around company
portability, approvals, activity, and heartbeat-run operations.
> - The vulnerability was that board-authenticated callers could cross
company boundaries or create new companies through import paths without
the same authorization checks enforced elsewhere.
> - Once that gap existed, an attacker could chain it into higher-impact
behavior through agent execution paths.
> - The fix needed to harden every confirmed authorization gap in the
reported chain, not just the first route that exposed it.
> - This pull request adds the missing instance-admin and company-access
checks and adds regression tests for each affected route.
> - The benefit is that cross-company actions and new-company import
flows now follow the same control-plane authorization rules as the rest
of the product.
## What Changed
- Required instance-admin access for `new_company` import preview/apply
flows in `server/src/routes/companies.ts`.
- Required company access before approval decision routes in
`server/src/routes/approvals.ts`.
- Required company access for activity creation and heartbeat-run issue
listing in `server/src/routes/activity.ts`.
- Required company access before heartbeat cancellation in
`server/src/routes/agents.ts`.
- Added regression coverage in the corresponding server route tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Prior verification on the original security patch branch also included
`pnpm build`.
## Risks
- Low code risk: the change is narrow and only adds missing
authorization gates to existing routes.
- Operational risk: the advisory is already public, so this PR should be
merged quickly to minimize the public unpatched window.
- Residual product risk remains around open signup / bootstrap defaults,
which was intentionally left out of this patch because the current
first-user onboarding flow depends on it.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with tool use and local code execution
in the Codex CLI environment.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Forgotten <forgottenrunes@protonmail.com>
2026-04-10 11:55:27 -05:00
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "approved",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.approve.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
approval: {
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "approved",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
applied: false,
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-1/approve")
|
|
|
|
|
.send({});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssueApprovalService.listIssuesForApproval).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockLogActivity).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("does not emit duplicate rejection logs when reject is already resolved", async () => {
|
fix(authz): scope import, approvals, activity, and heartbeat routes (#3315)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and company-scoped control-plane
actions for zero-human companies.
> - This change touches the server authz boundary around company
portability, approvals, activity, and heartbeat-run operations.
> - The vulnerability was that board-authenticated callers could cross
company boundaries or create new companies through import paths without
the same authorization checks enforced elsewhere.
> - Once that gap existed, an attacker could chain it into higher-impact
behavior through agent execution paths.
> - The fix needed to harden every confirmed authorization gap in the
reported chain, not just the first route that exposed it.
> - This pull request adds the missing instance-admin and company-access
checks and adds regression tests for each affected route.
> - The benefit is that cross-company actions and new-company import
flows now follow the same control-plane authorization rules as the rest
of the product.
## What Changed
- Required instance-admin access for `new_company` import preview/apply
flows in `server/src/routes/companies.ts`.
- Required company access before approval decision routes in
`server/src/routes/approvals.ts`.
- Required company access for activity creation and heartbeat-run issue
listing in `server/src/routes/activity.ts`.
- Required company access before heartbeat cancellation in
`server/src/routes/agents.ts`.
- Added regression coverage in the corresponding server route tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Prior verification on the original security patch branch also included
`pnpm build`.
## Risks
- Low code risk: the change is narrow and only adds missing
authorization gates to existing routes.
- Operational risk: the advisory is already public, so this PR should be
merged quickly to minimize the public unpatched window.
- Residual product risk remains around open signup / bootstrap defaults,
which was intentionally left out of this patch because the current
first-user onboarding flow depends on it.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with tool use and local code execution
in the Codex CLI environment.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Forgotten <forgottenrunes@protonmail.com>
2026-04-10 11:55:27 -05:00
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "rejected",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.reject.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
approval: {
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "rejected",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
applied: false,
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-1/reject")
|
|
|
|
|
.send({});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockLogActivity).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
2026-04-06 10:36:31 -05:00
|
|
|
|
fix(authz): scope import, approvals, activity, and heartbeat routes (#3315)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and company-scoped control-plane
actions for zero-human companies.
> - This change touches the server authz boundary around company
portability, approvals, activity, and heartbeat-run operations.
> - The vulnerability was that board-authenticated callers could cross
company boundaries or create new companies through import paths without
the same authorization checks enforced elsewhere.
> - Once that gap existed, an attacker could chain it into higher-impact
behavior through agent execution paths.
> - The fix needed to harden every confirmed authorization gap in the
reported chain, not just the first route that exposed it.
> - This pull request adds the missing instance-admin and company-access
checks and adds regression tests for each affected route.
> - The benefit is that cross-company actions and new-company import
flows now follow the same control-plane authorization rules as the rest
of the product.
## What Changed
- Required instance-admin access for `new_company` import preview/apply
flows in `server/src/routes/companies.ts`.
- Required company access before approval decision routes in
`server/src/routes/approvals.ts`.
- Required company access for activity creation and heartbeat-run issue
listing in `server/src/routes/activity.ts`.
- Required company access before heartbeat cancellation in
`server/src/routes/agents.ts`.
- Added regression coverage in the corresponding server route tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Prior verification on the original security patch branch also included
`pnpm build`.
## Risks
- Low code risk: the change is narrow and only adds missing
authorization gates to existing routes.
- Operational risk: the advisory is already public, so this PR should be
merged quickly to minimize the public unpatched window.
- Residual product risk remains around open signup / bootstrap defaults,
which was intentionally left out of this patch because the current
first-user onboarding flow depends on it.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with tool use and local code execution
in the Codex CLI environment.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Forgotten <forgottenrunes@protonmail.com>
2026-04-10 11:55:27 -05:00
|
|
|
it("rejects approval decisions for companies outside the caller scope", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-2",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-2",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
fix(authz): scope import, approvals, activity, and heartbeat routes (#3315)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and company-scoped control-plane
actions for zero-human companies.
> - This change touches the server authz boundary around company
portability, approvals, activity, and heartbeat-run operations.
> - The vulnerability was that board-authenticated callers could cross
company boundaries or create new companies through import paths without
the same authorization checks enforced elsewhere.
> - Once that gap existed, an attacker could chain it into higher-impact
behavior through agent execution paths.
> - The fix needed to harden every confirmed authorization gap in the
reported chain, not just the first route that exposed it.
> - This pull request adds the missing instance-admin and company-access
checks and adds regression tests for each affected route.
> - The benefit is that cross-company actions and new-company import
flows now follow the same control-plane authorization rules as the rest
of the product.
## What Changed
- Required instance-admin access for `new_company` import preview/apply
flows in `server/src/routes/companies.ts`.
- Required company access before approval decision routes in
`server/src/routes/approvals.ts`.
- Required company access for activity creation and heartbeat-run issue
listing in `server/src/routes/activity.ts`.
- Required company access before heartbeat cancellation in
`server/src/routes/agents.ts`.
- Added regression coverage in the corresponding server route tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Prior verification on the original security patch branch also included
`pnpm build`.
## Risks
- Low code risk: the change is narrow and only adds missing
authorization gates to existing routes.
- Operational risk: the advisory is already public, so this PR should be
merged quickly to minimize the public unpatched window.
- Residual product risk remains around open signup / bootstrap defaults,
which was intentionally left out of this patch because the current
first-user onboarding flow depends on it.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with tool use and local code execution
in the Codex CLI environment.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Forgotten <forgottenrunes@protonmail.com>
2026-04-10 11:55:27 -05:00
|
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-2/approve")
|
|
|
|
|
.send({});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.approve).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("rejects approval revision requests for companies outside the caller scope", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-3",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-2",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
fix(authz): scope import, approvals, activity, and heartbeat routes (#3315)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and company-scoped control-plane
actions for zero-human companies.
> - This change touches the server authz boundary around company
portability, approvals, activity, and heartbeat-run operations.
> - The vulnerability was that board-authenticated callers could cross
company boundaries or create new companies through import paths without
the same authorization checks enforced elsewhere.
> - Once that gap existed, an attacker could chain it into higher-impact
behavior through agent execution paths.
> - The fix needed to harden every confirmed authorization gap in the
reported chain, not just the first route that exposed it.
> - This pull request adds the missing instance-admin and company-access
checks and adds regression tests for each affected route.
> - The benefit is that cross-company actions and new-company import
flows now follow the same control-plane authorization rules as the rest
of the product.
## What Changed
- Required instance-admin access for `new_company` import preview/apply
flows in `server/src/routes/companies.ts`.
- Required company access before approval decision routes in
`server/src/routes/approvals.ts`.
- Required company access for activity creation and heartbeat-run issue
listing in `server/src/routes/activity.ts`.
- Required company access before heartbeat cancellation in
`server/src/routes/agents.ts`.
- Added regression coverage in the corresponding server route tests.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts
src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/agent-permissions-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- Prior verification on the original security patch branch also included
`pnpm build`.
## Risks
- Low code risk: the change is narrow and only adds missing
authorization gates to existing routes.
- Operational risk: the advisory is already public, so this PR should be
merged quickly to minimize the public unpatched window.
- Residual product risk remains around open signup / bootstrap defaults,
which was intentionally left out of this patch because the current
first-user onboarding flow depends on it.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with tool use and local code execution
in the Codex CLI environment.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Forgotten <forgottenrunes@protonmail.com>
2026-04-10 11:55:27 -05:00
|
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-3/request-revision")
|
|
|
|
|
.send({ decisionNote: "Need changes" });
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.requestRevision).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
[codex] harden authenticated routes and issue editor reliability (#3741)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - The control plane depends on authenticated routes enforcing company
boundaries and role permissions correctly
> - This branch also touches the issue detail and markdown editing flows
operators use while handling advisory and triage work
> - Partial issue cache seeds and fragile rich-editor parsing could
leave important issue content missing or blank at the moment an operator
needed it
> - Blocked issues becoming actionable again should wake their assignee
automatically instead of silently staying idle
> - This pull request rebases the advisory follow-up branch onto current
`master`, hardens authenticated route authorization, and carries the
issue-detail/editor reliability fixes forward with regression tests
> - The benefit is tighter authz on sensitive routes plus more reliable
issue/advisory editing and wakeup behavior on top of the latest base
## What Changed
- Hardened authenticated route authorization across agent, activity,
approval, access, project, plugin, health, execution-workspace,
portability, and related server paths, with new cross-tenant and
runtime-authz regression coverage.
- Switched issue detail queries from `initialData` to placeholder-based
hydration so list/quicklook seeds still refetch full issue bodies.
- Normalized advisory-style HTML images before mounting the markdown
editor and strengthened fallback behavior when the rich editor silently
fails or rejects the content.
- Woke assigned agents when blocked issues move back to `todo`, with
route coverage for reopen and unblock transitions.
- Rebasing note: this branch now sits cleanly on top of the latest
`master` tip used for the PR base.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issueDetailQuery.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts`
- Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not part of the PR diff.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` before publishing.
## Risks
- Broad authz tightening may expose existing flows that were relying on
permissive board or agent access and now need explicit grants.
- Markdown editor fallback changes could affect focus or rendering in
edge-case content that mixes HTML-like advisory markup with normal
markdown.
- This verification was intentionally scoped to touched regressions and
did not run the full repository suite.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment
with tool use for terminal, git, and GitHub operations. The exact
runtime model identifier is not exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, it is behavior-only and does not
need before/after screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes, or no
documentation changes were needed for these internal fixes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-15 08:41:15 -05:00
|
|
|
it("derives approval attribution from the authenticated actor on approve", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-4",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
requestedByAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.approve.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
approval: {
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-4",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "approved",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
requestedByAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
applied: true,
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
|
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-4/approve")
|
|
|
|
|
.send({ decidedByUserId: "forged-user", decisionNote: "ship it" });
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.approve).toHaveBeenCalledWith("approval-4", "user-1", "ship it");
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("derives approval attribution from the authenticated actor on reject", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-5",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.reject.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
approval: {
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-5",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "rejected",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
applied: true,
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
|
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-5/reject")
|
|
|
|
|
.send({ decidedByUserId: "forged-user", decisionNote: "not now" });
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.reject).toHaveBeenCalledWith("approval-5", "user-1", "not now");
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("derives approval attribution from the authenticated actor on request revision", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-6",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.requestRevision.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-6",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "revision_requested",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
|
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-6/request-revision")
|
|
|
|
|
.send({ decidedByUserId: "forged-user", decisionNote: "Need changes" });
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.requestRevision).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
|
|
|
|
|
"approval-6",
|
|
|
|
|
"user-1",
|
|
|
|
|
"Need changes",
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-06 10:36:31 -05:00
|
|
|
it("lets agents create generic issue-linked board approval requests", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockApprovalService.create.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
|
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
requestedByUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
|
|
|
payload: { title: "Approve hosting spend" },
|
|
|
|
|
decisionNote: null,
|
|
|
|
|
decidedByUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
decidedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-06T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-06T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-10 22:26:21 -05:00
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createAgentApp())
|
2026-04-06 10:36:31 -05:00
|
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/approvals")
|
|
|
|
|
.send({
|
|
|
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
|
|
|
issueIds: ["00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001"],
|
|
|
|
|
payload: { title: "Approve hosting spend" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle
semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep
regressions visible
> - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime
correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area
> - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused
issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch
overlapping issue APIs
> - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat,
telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch
> - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness
work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit
comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting
## What Changed
- Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review
stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded
execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and
blocked-to-todo wake resumption
- Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads,
compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and
capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces
- Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on
task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material
- Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster
route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation
from local state, and repo verification follow-ups
- Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small
follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were
dropped during branch reconstruction
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts`
- `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`,
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and
`server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted
on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported
init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they
are noted as environment-limited
## Risks
- Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and
reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow
rather than isolated UI polish
- Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should
pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure
modes and not just reshaping harness behavior
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## 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)
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-14 13:34:52 -05:00
|
|
|
expect([200, 201], JSON.stringify(res.body)).toContain(res.status);
|
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals,
and the board UI.
> - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not
hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals.
> - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native
surface for proposed tasks and questions.
> - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations,
richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers.
> - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become
explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue
workflow.
## What Changed
- Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks,
structured questions, and request confirmations.
- Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question
answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows.
- Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from
agents/plugins.
- Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill
docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for
issue-scoped decisions.
- Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch
migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD
COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users.
## Verification
- `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD`
- `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts
packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts
packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79
tests passed
- `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration
numbering check
## Risks
- Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across
db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces.
- Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master
migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add
idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering.
- UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR
does not include browser screenshots.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and
context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local
shell/code execution were enabled.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
|
|
|
expect(res.body).toMatchObject({
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
|
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
requestedByUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
2026-04-06 10:36:31 -05:00
|
|
|
expect(mockSecretService.normalizeHireApprovalPayloadForPersistence).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssueApprovalService.linkManyForApproval).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
|
|
|
|
|
"approval-1",
|
|
|
|
|
["00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001"],
|
|
|
|
|
{ agentId: "agent-1", userId: null },
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockLogActivity).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
|
|
|
|
|
expect.anything(),
|
|
|
|
|
expect.objectContaining({
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
actorType: "agent",
|
|
|
|
|
actorId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
action: "approval.created",
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
2026-03-10 12:00:29 -04:00
|
|
|
});
|