dbebf30c89
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled shell and GitHub CLI workflow. ## 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] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [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>
351 lines
10 KiB
TypeScript
351 lines
10 KiB
TypeScript
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());
|
|
const mockAccessService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
decide: vi.fn(),
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
function registerModuleMocks() {
|
|
vi.doMock("../services/index.js", () => ({
|
|
accessService: () => mockAccessService,
|
|
approvalService: () => mockApprovalService,
|
|
heartbeatService: () => mockHeartbeatService,
|
|
issueApprovalService: () => mockIssueApprovalService,
|
|
logActivity: mockLogActivity,
|
|
secretService: () => mockSecretService,
|
|
}));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
async function createApp(actorOverrides: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
|
|
const [{ errorHandler }, { approvalRoutes }] = await Promise.all([
|
|
import("../middleware/index.js"),
|
|
import("../routes/approvals.js"),
|
|
]);
|
|
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,
|
|
...actorOverrides,
|
|
};
|
|
next();
|
|
});
|
|
app.use("/api", approvalRoutes({} as any));
|
|
app.use(errorHandler);
|
|
return app;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
async function createAgentApp() {
|
|
const [{ errorHandler }, { approvalRoutes }] = await Promise.all([
|
|
import("../middleware/index.js"),
|
|
import("../routes/approvals.js"),
|
|
]);
|
|
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;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
describe("approval routes idempotent retries", () => {
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
|
vi.resetModules();
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../services/index.js");
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../routes/approvals.js");
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../routes/authz.js");
|
|
vi.doUnmock("../middleware/index.js");
|
|
registerModuleMocks();
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks();
|
|
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();
|
|
mockAccessService.decide.mockReset();
|
|
mockAccessService.decide.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
allowed: true,
|
|
action: "company_scope:read",
|
|
reason: "allow_test",
|
|
explanation: "Allowed by test mock.",
|
|
});
|
|
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 () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "approved",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
});
|
|
mockApprovalService.approve.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
approval: {
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "approved",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
},
|
|
applied: false,
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.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 () => {
|
|
mockApprovalService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "rejected",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
});
|
|
mockApprovalService.reject.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
approval: {
|
|
id: "approval-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "hire_agent",
|
|
status: "rejected",
|
|
payload: {},
|
|
},
|
|
applied: false,
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-1/reject")
|
|
.send({});
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
|
|
expect(mockLogActivity).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
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: {},
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.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: {},
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createApp())
|
|
.post("/api/approvals/approval-3/request-revision")
|
|
.send({ decisionNote: "Need changes" });
|
|
|
|
expect(res.status).toBe(403);
|
|
expect(mockApprovalService.requestRevision).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
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",
|
|
);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
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"),
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
const res = await request(await createAgentApp())
|
|
.post("/api/companies/company-1/approvals")
|
|
.send({
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
issueIds: ["00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001"],
|
|
payload: { title: "Approve hosting spend" },
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
expect([200, 201], JSON.stringify(res.body)).toContain(res.status);
|
|
expect(res.body).toMatchObject({
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
type: "request_board_approval",
|
|
requestedByAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
requestedByUserId: null,
|
|
status: "pending",
|
|
});
|
|
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",
|
|
}),
|
|
);
|
|
});
|
|
});
|