第二步:让 ZCode 上的 Bash/Write/Edit 授权走 AgentMail 的人工审批,
而不是只靠本地界面。
钩子契约从 CLI 产物里逆出来(不猜协议):
- 输入走 stdin:{hook_event_name, tool_name, tool_input, session_id, permission_mode…}
- 输出走 stdout,schema **严格**:{"decision":"approve"} / {"decision":"block","reason"}
多一个键就会报 "Hook stdout failed HookJSONOutput schema validation"
- 空输出 / 不以 { 开头 = 不表态;exit 2 = 拒绝;其它非零 = 钩子失败
- 注入的环境变量含 ZCODE_PLUGIN_ROOT / ZCODE_PLUGIN_DATA / ZCODE_SESSION_ID
(MCP 配置里用 ZCODE_SESSION_ID 反而会抛「需要运行时会话上下文」)
档位判定与 pi 桥逐条对齐(plan 直接拒 / workspace 问人 / full 批准),
判定逻辑抽成纯函数 lib/hook-policy.mjs 以便穷举:
其中 full 档必须**返回批准而不是不表态** —— 钩子一旦触发说明 ZCode 本会去问人,
不表态等于让那个询问照常发生,full 档就退化成了 workspace 档。
钩子自己开 SSE 等决定,不依赖桥进程:网关的 SSE 是扇出的
(clients 按唯一 id 存,SendToAgent 推给该 Agent 的所有客户端),
一次性进程也能订阅到自己那条 permission_decision。这样交互模式下同样可用
(人自己开着 ZCode 干活时并没有桥在跑)。先建连再发请求是有意的:
反过来会有一个窗口,人在窗口内点的同意推送给当时还不存在的客户端。
fail closed 但区分模式:永久失败(409/4xx)一律拒绝;暂时失败在
AGENTMAIL_SESSION_ID 非空(邮件驱动、没有本地界面兜底)时拒绝,
交互模式则不表态让人就地决定。
「一直同意」落盘(lib/grants-file.mjs):钩子是一个事件一个进程,
不落盘那个选项就是骗人的。判定仍交给共用的 permission-grants.js。
共用模块同源范围扩到 9 个(新增 permission-mode / relay-key /
permission-grants / sse-client)—— 档位语义与决策判定分叉会让「同意」
在 ZCode 上悄悄变成另一种意思。
验证:
- 单元 229/229(新增 hook-policy 14 项、grants-file 8 项,含反向对照)
- 共用模块四方同源检查通过
- 授权桥端到端 5/5,全部带反向对照:
同意→approve;拒绝→block 且原因必须来自人的拒绝(不能是超时兜底);
plan 档拒绝且**不产生**任何权限邮件;无人可问(409)→fail closed;
非守卫工具→不表态
- `zcode plugins list` → agentmail@inline [enabled],hooks: 1,
mcp: plugin:agentmail:agentmail
我自己写错的两处判据(都已修,值得记下):
1. 待决权限列表里有历史积压(实测 6 条,含其它 Agent 的条目),
只按「第一条新的」取会拿到无关请求 —— 于是人点了同意而钩子在等自己那条,
最后超时。第一版还把这个超时误报成「拒绝路径通过」。
现在按「启动前快照差集 + session_id + agent_name」三重过滤。
2. 「无人可问」控制组最初传了个非 UUID 的 session id,走的是 400(参数错),
验不到 409 那条真实路径。改为真的造一条只有 Agent 没有人类的会话。
216 lines
8.7 KiB
JavaScript
216 lines
8.7 KiB
JavaScript
/**
|
||
* lib/permission-mode.js 的测试 —— 四个平台逐字节共用。
|
||
*
|
||
* 这些判据编码了六条 opencode 实测结论。不实测就写代码会做出「看起来对但
|
||
* 管不住」的东西,所以每条结论都在这里钉死,改坏了会当场失败。
|
||
*/
|
||
|
||
import { test } from 'node:test';
|
||
import assert from 'node:assert/strict';
|
||
|
||
import {
|
||
MODE_PLAN, MODE_WORKSPACE, MODE_FULL, MODES, DEFAULT_MODE,
|
||
ENFORCE_NATIVE, ENFORCE_PARTIAL, ENFORCE_ADVISORY,
|
||
normalizeMode, normalizeEnforcement, modeAtMost, modeNeedsHuman,
|
||
dshSandboxMode, dshApprovalPolicy,
|
||
piGuardedTools, piBlocksOutright, modeBriefing,
|
||
} from '../lib/permission-mode.js';
|
||
|
||
// ─── 归一化 ───
|
||
|
||
test('合法档位原样返回', () => {
|
||
for (const m of MODES) assert.equal(normalizeMode(m), m);
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('非法档位 fail-closed 到默认档,不是 full', () => {
|
||
for (const bad of ['', 'FULL', 'full-access', 'workspace-write', null, undefined, 42, {}]) {
|
||
assert.equal(normalizeMode(bad), DEFAULT_MODE, `${String(bad)} 应当归到默认档`);
|
||
}
|
||
assert.notEqual(DEFAULT_MODE, MODE_FULL, '默认档不能是 full');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('强制力保守方向是 advisory', () => {
|
||
for (const ok of [ENFORCE_NATIVE, ENFORCE_PARTIAL, ENFORCE_ADVISORY]) {
|
||
assert.equal(normalizeEnforcement(ok), ok, `${ok} 是平台自报的事实,必须原样保留`);
|
||
}
|
||
for (const bad of ['', 'NATIVE', 'enforced', null, undefined]) {
|
||
assert.equal(normalizeEnforcement(bad), ENFORCE_ADVISORY);
|
||
}
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('档位顺序必须是 plan < workspace < full(modeAtMost 的依据)', () => {
|
||
assert.deepEqual(MODES, [MODE_PLAN, MODE_WORKSPACE, MODE_FULL]);
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
// ─── modeAtMost ───
|
||
|
||
test('modeAtMost 取更严的一档', () => {
|
||
assert.equal(modeAtMost(MODE_PLAN, MODE_FULL), MODE_PLAN);
|
||
assert.equal(modeAtMost(MODE_FULL, MODE_PLAN), MODE_PLAN);
|
||
assert.equal(modeAtMost(MODE_WORKSPACE, MODE_FULL), MODE_WORKSPACE);
|
||
assert.equal(modeAtMost(MODE_FULL, MODE_FULL), MODE_FULL);
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
// Gateway 侧曾因为「未知值当最严 vs 归到默认档」两套语义而不可交换,
|
||
// 单元测试当场抓到。两边保持同一套语义。
|
||
test('modeAtMost 可交换(脏值也不例外)', () => {
|
||
const all = [...MODES, 'garbage', '', null];
|
||
for (const a of all) {
|
||
for (const b of all) {
|
||
assert.equal(modeAtMost(a, b), modeAtMost(b, a),
|
||
`不可交换:(${a},${b})`);
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('脏值不得把 plan 抬成更宽松的档', () => {
|
||
assert.equal(modeAtMost('garbage', MODE_PLAN), MODE_PLAN);
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
// ─── modeNeedsHuman ───
|
||
|
||
test('只有 workspace 档需要人点头', () => {
|
||
assert.equal(modeNeedsHuman(MODE_PLAN), false, 'plan 档当场拒绝,不问人');
|
||
assert.equal(modeNeedsHuman(MODE_WORKSPACE), true);
|
||
assert.equal(modeNeedsHuman(MODE_FULL), false, 'full 档自动放行,不问人');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('脏档位按默认档处理,即需要人(宁可多问一次)', () => {
|
||
assert.equal(modeNeedsHuman('garbage'), true);
|
||
assert.equal(modeNeedsHuman(''), true);
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
// ─── DSH ───
|
||
|
||
test('DSH 三档与原生沙箱一一对应', () => {
|
||
assert.equal(dshSandboxMode(MODE_PLAN), 'read-only');
|
||
assert.equal(dshSandboxMode(MODE_WORKSPACE), 'workspace-write');
|
||
assert.equal(dshSandboxMode(MODE_FULL), 'danger-full-access');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
// 关键实测:danger-full-access → approval:"never" → decide() 在 waterfall
|
||
// 之前短路 return "rejected",approval/request 钩子根本不触发。
|
||
test('DSH 审批策略只在 workspace 档是 ask', () => {
|
||
assert.equal(dshApprovalPolicy(MODE_WORKSPACE), 'ask');
|
||
assert.equal(dshApprovalPolicy(MODE_PLAN), 'never');
|
||
assert.equal(dshApprovalPolicy(MODE_FULL), 'never');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('DSH 脏档位按默认档(workspace-write + ask)', () => {
|
||
assert.equal(dshSandboxMode('garbage'), 'workspace-write');
|
||
assert.equal(dshApprovalPolicy('garbage'), 'ask');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
// ─── pi ───
|
||
|
||
test('pi 在 full 档不守卫任何工具', () => {
|
||
assert.deepEqual(piGuardedTools(MODE_FULL), []);
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('pi 在 plan / workspace 档守卫 bash / write / edit', () => {
|
||
for (const m of [MODE_PLAN, MODE_WORKSPACE]) {
|
||
const g = piGuardedTools(m);
|
||
assert.ok(g.includes('bash'));
|
||
assert.ok(g.includes('write'));
|
||
assert.ok(g.includes('edit'));
|
||
}
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('pi 不守卫读类工具', () => {
|
||
const g = piGuardedTools(MODE_WORKSPACE);
|
||
for (const t of ['read', 'grep', 'find', 'ls']) {
|
||
assert.equal(g.includes(t), false, `${t} 是读类工具,不该守卫`);
|
||
}
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('pi 在 plan 档直接拒绝,不走问人流程', () => {
|
||
assert.equal(piBlocksOutright(MODE_PLAN), true);
|
||
assert.equal(piBlocksOutright(MODE_WORKSPACE), false);
|
||
assert.equal(piBlocksOutright(MODE_FULL), false);
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
// ─── modeBriefing ───
|
||
|
||
test('full 档的说明不提授权', () => {
|
||
const s = modeBriefing({ mode: MODE_FULL, enforcement: ENFORCE_NATIVE });
|
||
assert.match(s, /full/);
|
||
assert.equal(/授权/.test(s.replace('不需要额外授权', '')), false);
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
// advisory 与 native 措辞必须不同:假装 advisory 是强制的会让模型以为
|
||
// 越界会被拦,于是不必自己小心 —— 那比做不到本身更危险。
|
||
test('advisory 必须明说平台无法强制这一档', () => {
|
||
const adv = modeBriefing({ mode: MODE_PLAN, enforcement: ENFORCE_ADVISORY });
|
||
const nat = modeBriefing({ mode: MODE_PLAN, enforcement: ENFORCE_NATIVE });
|
||
assert.match(adv, /无法强制/);
|
||
assert.equal(/无法强制/.test(nat), false, 'native 不该说无法强制');
|
||
assert.notEqual(adv, nat, '两种强制力的措辞必须不同');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('workspace 档的 advisory 版同样明说', () => {
|
||
const adv = modeBriefing({ mode: MODE_WORKSPACE, enforcement: ENFORCE_ADVISORY, workspace: '/tmp/x' });
|
||
assert.match(adv, /无法强制/);
|
||
assert.match(adv, /\/tmp\/x/, '要带上具体目录');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('native 的 workspace 说明要交代「授权可能被拒」', () => {
|
||
const s = modeBriefing({ mode: MODE_WORKSPACE, enforcement: ENFORCE_NATIVE, workspace: '/srv/app' });
|
||
assert.match(s, /\/srv\/app/);
|
||
assert.match(s, /拒绝/, '被拒时该怎么办必须说清楚,否则模型会反复重试');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('plan 档的说明必须告诉模型「把方案写在回信里」', () => {
|
||
for (const e of [ENFORCE_NATIVE, ENFORCE_ADVISORY]) {
|
||
const s = modeBriefing({ mode: MODE_PLAN, enforcement: e });
|
||
assert.match(s, /回信/, '不给出路的话模型只会反复撞墙');
|
||
}
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('缺 workspace 时用兜底措辞,不出现 undefined', () => {
|
||
const s = modeBriefing({ mode: MODE_WORKSPACE, enforcement: ENFORCE_NATIVE });
|
||
assert.equal(/undefined/.test(s), false);
|
||
assert.equal(/`` /.test(s), false);
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('脏输入不炸且按默认档', () => {
|
||
const s = modeBriefing({ mode: 'garbage', enforcement: 'garbage' });
|
||
assert.match(s, /workspace/);
|
||
assert.match(s, /无法强制/, '脏强制力按 advisory 处理');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
// ─── partial:有拦截点但覆盖不完整 ───
|
||
//
|
||
// 这个取值的全部意义就是「不许说假话」。因此判据不是「措辞好看」,
|
||
// 而是它与两个极端的说法**都不同**,且明确交代「不要依赖会被拦」。
|
||
test('partial 三档措辞两两不同(不能与任一极端混同)', () => {
|
||
for (const mode of [MODE_PLAN, MODE_WORKSPACE]) {
|
||
const nat = modeBriefing({ mode, enforcement: ENFORCE_NATIVE });
|
||
const par = modeBriefing({ mode, enforcement: ENFORCE_PARTIAL });
|
||
const adv = modeBriefing({ mode, enforcement: ENFORCE_ADVISORY });
|
||
assert.notEqual(par, nat, `${mode}: partial 不能与 native 同措辞(那是高估)`);
|
||
assert.notEqual(par, adv, `${mode}: partial 不能与 advisory 同措辞(那是低估)`);
|
||
}
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('partial 必须交代「覆盖不完整」且不得说「无法强制」', () => {
|
||
for (const mode of [MODE_PLAN, MODE_WORKSPACE]) {
|
||
const par = modeBriefing({ mode, enforcement: ENFORCE_PARTIAL });
|
||
assert.match(par, /不完整|缺口/, `${mode}: 必须说清覆盖不完整`);
|
||
assert.equal(/无法强制/.test(par), false,
|
||
`${mode}: partial 平台确实在拦,「无法强制」是错的`);
|
||
}
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('partial 不能把「会被拦下」当成保证', () => {
|
||
const plan = modeBriefing({ mode: MODE_PLAN, enforcement: ENFORCE_PARTIAL });
|
||
// native 版说「都会被平台拦下」,partial 版必须收回这个承诺
|
||
assert.equal(/都会被平台拦下/.test(plan), false,
|
||
'partial 下承诺「都会拦下」会让模型不必自己小心 —— 那是 native 才成立的话');
|
||
assert.match(plan, /不要依赖|主动/, '必须给出「主动自律」的指引');
|
||
});
|
||
|
||
test('partial 与 native 一样要求把方案写在回信里(出路不能消失)', () => {
|
||
const s = modeBriefing({ mode: MODE_PLAN, enforcement: ENFORCE_PARTIAL });
|
||
assert.match(s, /回信/);
|
||
});
|