Files
paperclip/server/src/first-admin-claim.ts
T
Dotta 8da50dbcf8 [codex] Add private browser first-admin claim flow (#6755)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Fresh self-hosted deployments need an operator path before any
invite exists.
> - Umbrel installs are private LAN deployments, so a one-time browser
claim is appropriate only when the deployment is private and unclaimed.
> - Public deployments and installs with active invites must keep the
existing invite-only model so admin creation is not exposed broadly.
> - GitHub PR #2927 established the useful direction, but it needed to
be adapted onto current `master` rather than merged as-is.
> - This pull request adds that adapted private-only claim flow across
server, UI, docs, and regression coverage.
> - The benefit is that a fresh private Umbrel-style install can be
claimed from the browser without weakening public deployment access.

## What Changed

- Added a first-admin claim service and access route support for
one-time admin claim eligibility on private unclaimed deployments.
- Updated the bootstrap/access UI so eligible private installs show a
setup claim path, while public and invited deployments keep invite-first
behavior.
- Added a bootstrap-pending setup UX lab covering claim, invite, public,
and signed-in access states.
- Updated deployment and local development docs for authenticated
private/public behavior and the Umbrel-style claim path.
- Added server and UI regression tests for private claim, public
no-claim, active invite fallback, existing board/no-access flows, and
health exposure reporting.
- Stabilized PR handoff verification by serializing the aggregate server
Vitest workspace run, forcing `NODE_ENV=test`, and relaxing the
heartbeat batching test around legitimate recovery follow-up runs.

## Verification

- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`
- `pnpm vitest --run
server/src/__tests__/health-dev-server-token.test.ts`
- `pnpm test:run`
- QA validation: PAP-10115 passed browser validation with screenshots
for private fresh install claim, active invite versus claim conflict,
public invite-only/claim-absent behavior, existing invite fallback, and
normal board/no-access flows.
- GitHub closeout: issue #2579 and PR #2927 were updated with the
accepted direction: adapt the implementation, do not direct-merge #2927
as-is.

## Risks

- The claim endpoint must remain private-only and one-time; a regression
here could expose admin creation on public deployments.
- Existing invite behavior must remain intact for public deployments and
installs that already have an active invite.
- The stable Vitest harness now serializes the aggregate server
workspace group; this is slower, but it avoids DB-backed suite
collisions under root workspace mode.

> 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`.
>
> ROADMAP.md checked: this is a scoped deployment bootstrap/access fix
and does not duplicate a listed roadmap project.

## Model Used

- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` for product
engineering, implementation, and verification, with tool-enabled local
code execution. Paperclip QA browser validation was performed in
PAP-10115 by the assigned QA agent; exact adapter model metadata for
that QA run is not exposed in this PR context.

## 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

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-05-27 21:15:01 -10:00

56 lines
1.4 KiB
TypeScript

import { eq, sql } from "drizzle-orm";
import type { Db } from "@paperclipai/db";
import { instanceUserRoles } from "@paperclipai/db";
type FirstAdminTransaction = Pick<Db, "execute" | "select" | "insert" | "update">;
export type FirstAdminClaimResult<T = unknown> =
| {
status: "claimed";
userId: string;
value: T | null;
}
| {
status: "already_claimed";
existingUserId: string | null;
value: null;
};
export async function claimFirstInstanceAdmin<T = unknown>(
db: Db,
input: {
userId: string;
onClaim?: (tx: FirstAdminTransaction) => Promise<T>;
},
): Promise<FirstAdminClaimResult<T>> {
return db.transaction(async (tx) => {
await tx.execute(sql`lock table ${instanceUserRoles} in share row exclusive mode`);
const existingAdmin = await tx
.select({ userId: instanceUserRoles.userId })
.from(instanceUserRoles)
.where(eq(instanceUserRoles.role, "instance_admin"))
.then((rows) => rows[0] ?? null);
if (existingAdmin) {
return {
status: "already_claimed" as const,
existingUserId: existingAdmin.userId ?? null,
value: null,
};
}
await tx.insert(instanceUserRoles).values({
userId: input.userId,
role: "instance_admin",
});
const value = input.onClaim ? await input.onClaim(tx) : null;
return {
status: "claimed" as const,
userId: input.userId,
value,
};
});
}