paperclip/server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts

446 lines
14 KiB
TypeScript
Raw Normal View History

[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
import express from "express";
import request from "supertest";
import { beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
const mockProjectService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
create: vi.fn(),
createWorkspace: vi.fn(),
getById: vi.fn(),
listWorkspaces: vi.fn(),
resolveByReference: vi.fn(),
update: vi.fn(),
updateWorkspace: vi.fn(),
}));
const mockExecutionWorkspaceService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
getById: vi.fn(),
update: vi.fn(),
}));
const mockSecretService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
normalizeEnvBindingsForPersistence: vi.fn(),
}));
const mockWorkspaceOperationService = vi.hoisted(() => ({}));
const mockLogActivity = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
const mockGetTelemetryClient = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
const mockAssertCanManageProjectWorkspaceRuntimeServices = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
const mockAssertCanManageExecutionWorkspaceRuntimeServices = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
function registerModuleMocks() {
vi.doMock("../telemetry.js", () => ({
getTelemetryClient: mockGetTelemetryClient,
}));
vi.doMock("../services/index.js", () => ({
executionWorkspaceService: () => mockExecutionWorkspaceService,
logActivity: mockLogActivity,
projectService: () => mockProjectService,
secretService: () => mockSecretService,
workspaceOperationService: () => mockWorkspaceOperationService,
}));
vi.doMock("../services/workspace-runtime.js", () => ({
cleanupExecutionWorkspaceArtifacts: vi.fn(),
startRuntimeServicesForWorkspaceControl: vi.fn(),
stopRuntimeServicesForExecutionWorkspace: vi.fn(),
stopRuntimeServicesForProjectWorkspace: vi.fn(),
}));
vi.doMock("../routes/workspace-runtime-service-authz.js", () => ({
assertCanManageProjectWorkspaceRuntimeServices: mockAssertCanManageProjectWorkspaceRuntimeServices,
assertCanManageExecutionWorkspaceRuntimeServices: mockAssertCanManageExecutionWorkspaceRuntimeServices,
}));
}
async function createProjectApp(actor: Record<string, unknown>) {
const { projectRoutes } = await import("../routes/projects.js");
const { errorHandler } = await import("../middleware/index.js");
const app = express();
app.use(express.json());
app.use((req, _res, next) => {
(req as any).actor = actor;
next();
});
app.use("/api", projectRoutes({} as any));
app.use(errorHandler);
return app;
}
async function createExecutionWorkspaceApp(actor: Record<string, unknown>) {
const { executionWorkspaceRoutes } = await import("../routes/execution-workspaces.js");
const { errorHandler } = await import("../middleware/index.js");
const app = express();
app.use(express.json());
app.use((req, _res, next) => {
(req as any).actor = actor;
next();
});
app.use("/api", executionWorkspaceRoutes({} as any));
app.use(errorHandler);
return app;
}
function buildProject(overrides: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
return {
id: "project-1",
companyId: "company-1",
urlKey: "project-1",
goalId: null,
goalIds: [],
goals: [],
name: "Project",
description: null,
status: "backlog",
leadAgentId: null,
targetDate: null,
color: null,
env: null,
pauseReason: null,
pausedAt: null,
executionWorkspacePolicy: null,
codebase: null,
workspaces: [],
primaryWorkspace: null,
archivedAt: null,
createdAt: new Date(),
updatedAt: new Date(),
...overrides,
};
}
function buildExecutionWorkspace(overrides: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
return {
id: "workspace-1",
companyId: "company-1",
projectId: "project-1",
projectWorkspaceId: null,
sourceIssueId: null,
mode: "isolated_workspace",
strategyType: "git_worktree",
name: "Workspace",
status: "active",
cwd: "/tmp/workspace",
repoUrl: null,
baseRef: "main",
branchName: "feature/test",
providerType: "git_worktree",
providerRef: null,
derivedFromExecutionWorkspaceId: null,
lastUsedAt: new Date(),
openedAt: new Date(),
closedAt: null,
cleanupEligibleAt: null,
cleanupReason: null,
config: null,
metadata: null,
runtimeServices: [],
createdAt: new Date(),
updatedAt: new Date(),
...overrides,
};
}
describe("workspace runtime service route authorization", () => {
const projectId = "11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111";
const workspaceId = "22222222-2222-4222-8222-222222222222";
const executionWorkspaceId = "33333333-3333-4333-8333-333333333333";
beforeEach(() => {
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("../telemetry.js");
vi.doUnmock("../services/index.js");
vi.doUnmock("../services/workspace-runtime.js");
vi.doUnmock("../routes/workspace-runtime-service-authz.js");
vi.doUnmock("../routes/projects.js");
vi.doUnmock("../routes/execution-workspaces.js");
vi.doUnmock("../routes/authz.js");
vi.doUnmock("../middleware/index.js");
[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
registerModuleMocks();
[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.resetAllMocks();
[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
mockSecretService.normalizeEnvBindingsForPersistence.mockImplementation(async (_companyId, env) => env);
mockProjectService.resolveByReference.mockResolvedValue({ ambiguous: false, project: null });
mockProjectService.create.mockResolvedValue(buildProject());
mockProjectService.update.mockResolvedValue(buildProject());
mockProjectService.createWorkspace.mockResolvedValue({
id: workspaceId,
companyId: "company-1",
projectId,
name: "Workspace",
sourceType: "local_path",
cwd: "/tmp/project",
repoUrl: null,
repoRef: null,
defaultRef: null,
visibility: "default",
setupCommand: null,
cleanupCommand: null,
remoteProvider: null,
remoteWorkspaceRef: null,
sharedWorkspaceKey: null,
metadata: null,
runtimeConfig: null,
isPrimary: false,
runtimeServices: [],
createdAt: new Date(),
updatedAt: new Date(),
});
mockProjectService.listWorkspaces.mockResolvedValue([{
id: workspaceId,
companyId: "company-1",
projectId,
name: "Workspace",
sourceType: "local_path",
cwd: "/tmp/project",
repoUrl: null,
repoRef: null,
defaultRef: null,
visibility: "default",
setupCommand: null,
cleanupCommand: null,
remoteProvider: null,
remoteWorkspaceRef: null,
sharedWorkspaceKey: null,
metadata: null,
runtimeConfig: null,
isPrimary: false,
runtimeServices: [],
createdAt: new Date(),
updatedAt: new Date(),
}]);
mockProjectService.updateWorkspace.mockResolvedValue({
id: workspaceId,
companyId: "company-1",
projectId,
name: "Workspace",
sourceType: "local_path",
cwd: "/tmp/project",
repoUrl: null,
repoRef: null,
defaultRef: null,
visibility: "default",
setupCommand: null,
cleanupCommand: null,
remoteProvider: null,
remoteWorkspaceRef: null,
sharedWorkspaceKey: null,
metadata: null,
runtimeConfig: null,
isPrimary: false,
runtimeServices: [],
createdAt: new Date(),
updatedAt: new Date(),
});
mockExecutionWorkspaceService.update.mockResolvedValue(buildExecutionWorkspace());
mockAssertCanManageProjectWorkspaceRuntimeServices.mockResolvedValue(undefined);
mockAssertCanManageExecutionWorkspaceRuntimeServices.mockResolvedValue(undefined);
});
it("rejects agent callers for project workspace runtime service mutations when workspace auth denies access", async () => {
const { forbidden } = await import("../errors.js");
mockProjectService.getById.mockResolvedValue(buildProject({
id: projectId,
workspaces: [{
id: workspaceId,
companyId: "company-1",
projectId,
name: "Workspace",
sourceType: "local_path",
cwd: "/tmp/project",
repoUrl: null,
repoRef: null,
defaultRef: null,
visibility: "default",
setupCommand: null,
cleanupCommand: null,
remoteProvider: null,
remoteWorkspaceRef: null,
sharedWorkspaceKey: null,
metadata: null,
runtimeConfig: null,
isPrimary: false,
runtimeServices: [],
createdAt: new Date(),
updatedAt: new Date(),
}],
}));
mockAssertCanManageProjectWorkspaceRuntimeServices.mockRejectedValue(
forbidden("Missing permission to manage workspace runtime services"),
);
const app = await createProjectApp({
type: "agent",
agentId: "agent-1",
companyId: "company-1",
source: "agent_key",
runId: "run-1",
});
const res = await request(app)
.post(`/api/projects/${projectId}/workspaces/${workspaceId}/runtime-services/start`)
.send({});
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
expect(res.body.error).toContain("Missing permission");
expect(mockProjectService.getById).toHaveBeenCalledWith(projectId);
expect(mockAssertCanManageProjectWorkspaceRuntimeServices).toHaveBeenCalled();
}, 15000);
it("rejects agent callers that create project execution workspace commands", async () => {
const app = await createProjectApp({
type: "agent",
agentId: "agent-1",
companyId: "company-1",
source: "agent_key",
runId: "run-1",
});
const res = await request(app)
.post("/api/companies/company-1/projects")
.send({
name: "Exploit",
executionWorkspacePolicy: {
enabled: true,
workspaceStrategy: {
type: "git_worktree",
provisionCommand: "touch /tmp/paperclip-rce",
},
},
});
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
expect(res.body.error).toContain("host-executed workspace commands");
expect(mockProjectService.create).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it("rejects agent callers that update project workspace cleanup commands", async () => {
mockProjectService.getById.mockResolvedValue(buildProject());
const app = await createProjectApp({
type: "agent",
agentId: "agent-1",
companyId: "company-1",
source: "agent_key",
runId: "run-1",
});
const res = await request(app)
.patch(`/api/projects/${projectId}/workspaces/${workspaceId}`)
.send({
cleanupCommand: "rm -rf /tmp/paperclip-rce",
});
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
expect(res.body.error).toContain("host-executed workspace commands");
expect(mockProjectService.updateWorkspace).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it("allows board callers through the project workspace runtime auth gate", async () => {
mockProjectService.getById.mockResolvedValue(null);
const app = await createProjectApp({
type: "board",
userId: "board-1",
companyIds: ["company-1"],
source: "session",
isInstanceAdmin: false,
});
const res = await request(app)
.post(`/api/projects/${projectId}/workspaces/${workspaceId}/runtime-services/start`)
.send({});
expect(res.status).toBe(404);
expect(res.body.error).toContain("Project not found");
expect(mockProjectService.getById).toHaveBeenCalledWith(projectId);
});
it("rejects agent callers for execution workspace runtime service mutations when workspace auth denies access", async () => {
const { forbidden } = await import("../errors.js");
mockExecutionWorkspaceService.getById.mockResolvedValue(buildExecutionWorkspace({ id: executionWorkspaceId }));
mockAssertCanManageExecutionWorkspaceRuntimeServices.mockRejectedValue(
forbidden("Missing permission to manage workspace runtime services"),
);
const app = await createExecutionWorkspaceApp({
type: "agent",
agentId: "agent-1",
companyId: "company-1",
source: "agent_key",
runId: "run-1",
});
const res = await request(app)
.post(`/api/execution-workspaces/${executionWorkspaceId}/runtime-services/restart`)
.send({});
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
expect(res.body.error).toContain("Missing permission");
expect(mockExecutionWorkspaceService.getById).toHaveBeenCalledWith(executionWorkspaceId);
expect(mockAssertCanManageExecutionWorkspaceRuntimeServices).toHaveBeenCalled();
}, 15000);
it("rejects agent callers that patch execution workspace command config", async () => {
mockExecutionWorkspaceService.getById.mockResolvedValue(buildExecutionWorkspace({ id: executionWorkspaceId }));
const app = await createExecutionWorkspaceApp({
type: "agent",
agentId: "agent-1",
companyId: "company-1",
source: "agent_key",
runId: "run-1",
});
const res = await request(app)
.patch(`/api/execution-workspaces/${executionWorkspaceId}`)
.send({
config: {
cleanupCommand: "rm -rf /tmp/paperclip-rce",
},
});
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
expect(res.body.error).toContain("host-executed workspace commands");
expect(mockExecutionWorkspaceService.update).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it("rejects agent callers that smuggle execution workspace commands through metadata.config", async () => {
mockExecutionWorkspaceService.getById.mockResolvedValue(buildExecutionWorkspace({ id: executionWorkspaceId }));
const app = await createExecutionWorkspaceApp({
type: "agent",
agentId: "agent-1",
companyId: "company-1",
source: "agent_key",
runId: "run-1",
});
const res = await request(app)
.patch(`/api/execution-workspaces/${executionWorkspaceId}`)
.send({
metadata: {
config: {
provisionCommand: "touch /tmp/paperclip-rce",
},
},
});
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
expect(res.body.error).toContain("host-executed workspace commands");
expect(mockExecutionWorkspaceService.update).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it("allows board callers through the execution workspace runtime auth gate", async () => {
mockExecutionWorkspaceService.getById.mockResolvedValue(null);
const app = await createExecutionWorkspaceApp({
type: "board",
userId: "board-1",
companyIds: ["company-1"],
source: "session",
isInstanceAdmin: false,
});
const res = await request(app)
.post(`/api/execution-workspaces/${executionWorkspaceId}/runtime-services/restart`)
.send({});
expect(res.status).toBe(404);
expect(res.body.error).toContain("Execution workspace not found");
expect(mockExecutionWorkspaceService.getById).toHaveBeenCalledWith(executionWorkspaceId);
});
});