mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-02 02:07:25 +08:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
e2f1a66aa7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Operators can hide settings that their users must not change. > - The server shares the effective restrictions with the UI and settings API. > - An explicit list must change whenever a new experimental flag is added. > - This pull request adds a wildcard with named exceptions to the existing setting. > - Core applies the policy to its current catalog, so new flags stay hidden automatically. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #11823 introduced settings visibility. #13907 added workspace isolation visibility. I searched related PRs and issues and found no duplicate wildcard implementation. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Operator control of experimental setting visibility through `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS`. **Subsystem affected** Shared settings policy and its existing server health and mutation consumers. **Current behavior** Operators must name every hidden experimental toggle. A new Core flag can become visible until the operator updates that list. **Proposed behavior** `instance.experimental.*` hides current and future experimental toggles. Entries such as `!instance.experimental.enableEnvironments` leave named controls available. Explicit hidden keys and the hidden parent page take precedence over exceptions. **Reason and benefit** Operators can maintain a short list of allowed controls instead of a second copy of Core's full feature catalog. **Breaking changes** Existing explicit lists and unset configuration keep their behavior. The new syntax is opt-in. Older images ignore it, so operators must retain explicit restrictions until those images are upgraded. Visibility does not change feature values. ## What Changed - Expand the wildcard into concrete catalog keys in the shared parser. - Limit exceptions to known experimental controls and preserve explicit restrictions in either input order. - Test a synthetic future catalog addition, duplicate and invalid entries, API rejection, same-value echoes, and the effective health payload. - Document the syntax and the transition for deployments with mixed image versions. ## Verification - Targeted parser, future-catalog, health, and settings-route tests pass: 95 tests across four files. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes, including Rust checks, with the installed Cargo directory on PATH. - `pnpm build` passes. - All current-head CI gates pass, including the full test shards, Rust, build, browser E2E, and canary dry run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36083292578. One unchanged runtime-exposure cold-start test passed on its first retry. - The full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass on macOS/Node 25: the first server group reported 13,356 passed, 18 failed, and 99 skipped, with six failed files (including two failed suite setups). Failures were in unchanged runtime/company skill cache, chat/email connector fixtures, embedded-Postgres setup, and workspace cleanup tests. A standalone filesystem probe reproduced the read-only-directory rename permission failure. Missing connector fixture paths, database startup failures, and two integration assertions also occurred; the remaining local groups were not reached after this group failed. The corresponding CI lanes all pass. These local failures are not claimed as fixed by this PR. - Browser suites were not run because this changes the shared policy, not UI rendering or browser workflows. Health payload and route tests cover the shared UI/API contract. ## Risks A malformed exception remains hidden and is reported as unknown. Exceptions cannot override an explicit hidden toggle or parent page. Older images ignore wildcard syntax; keep their explicit list during a mixed-version rollout. No schema or feature-value changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact runtime variant and context-window size are not exposed in 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 checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
