Skip to content

[AI-3] Let admins disconnect or remove the stored API key - #24881

Open
tangopium wants to merge 1 commit into
feature/66020-pr02-connection-admin-pagefrom
feature/66020-pr03-disconnect-and-key-removal
Open

[AI-3] Let admins disconnect or remove the stored API key#24881
tangopium wants to merge 1 commit into
feature/66020-pr02-connection-admin-pagefrom
feature/66020-pr03-disconnect-and-key-removal

Conversation

@tangopium

@tangopium tangopium commented Aug 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Ticket

AI-3

What are you trying to accomplish?

PR 3 of 11 in the AI-3 stack. Adds the two destructive actions to the connection page, each behind a danger dialog: Disconnect clears the stored API key and switches the connection off, and Remove API key clears only the credential. Both dialogs spell out what is kept, because a stored key can never be read back once saved. Deliberately not routed through the update service, whose contract would probe the now-keyless server and could let it refuse the removal.

Merge checklist

  • Added/updated tests
  • Behind the llm_connection feature flag

Stacked on #24880.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Caution

The provided work package version does not match the core version

Details:

Please make sure that:

  • The work package version OR your pull request target branch is correct

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Caution

The Enterprise plan field is not set on the work package

Details:

Please make sure that:

  • The work package Enterprise plan field is set

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: dd155f7053

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread app/controllers/admin/llm_connections_controller.rb Outdated
@tangopium
tangopium force-pushed the feature/66020-pr03-disconnect-and-key-removal branch from dd155f7 to b94f290 Compare August 22, 2026 15:05
@tangopium tangopium changed the title [#66020] Let admins disconnect or remove the stored API key [AI-3] Let admins disconnect or remove the stored API key Aug 22, 2026
@tangopium
tangopium force-pushed the feature/66020-pr03-disconnect-and-key-removal branch from b94f290 to d4e3e77 Compare August 22, 2026 15:51
Adds two guarded actions to the admin LLM connection page: Disconnect clears the stored API key and switches the connection off, and Remove API key clears only the credential. Both are confirmed through a danger dialog that spells out what is kept, because the stored key can never be read back once saved.

Part 3 of the AI-3 stack.

https://community.openproject.org/work_packages/66020
@tangopium
tangopium force-pushed the feature/66020-pr03-disconnect-and-key-removal branch from d4e3e77 to d05909a Compare August 22, 2026 16:16
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Flaky specs

  • rspec ./modules/team_planner/spec/features/query_handling_spec.rb[1:3:1:1]
  • rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:1]
  • rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]
🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24881, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/team_planner/spec/features/query_handling_spec.rb[1:3:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24881. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24881 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @tangopium to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @tangopium, and request a review from @tangopium.
On every commit, set @tangopium as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

@tangopium
tangopium requested a review from thykel August 22, 2026 21:39
@tangopium tangopium self-assigned this Aug 22, 2026

@thykel thykel left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking decent to me so far! I'd just enlarge the modal, as it's currently struggling to contain all that content.

Image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants