wdevs/amcs
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 3 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 3 Wiki Activity

Design and implement per-user tenancy #10

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-04-03 11:12:38 +00:00 by sam · 3 comments
sam commented 2026-04-03 11:12:38 +00:00
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

Summary

Add a tenancy model so AMCS can safely separate data by user, tenant, or workspace instead of assuming a single shared memory space.

Why

Per-user tenancy is listed as a deferred feature in the implementation plan. It becomes important if AMCS is used by multiple users, agents, or client applications that should not share the same thought/project namespace.

Scope ideas

  • Define the tenant boundary: user, org, workspace, or account
  • Add tenant-aware schema and indexing strategy
  • Update auth context so requests resolve to a tenant
  • Ensure searches, project lookups, files, skills, and guardrails are tenant-scoped
  • Consider migration strategy for single-tenant installs
  • Document security expectations and isolation guarantees

Acceptance criteria

  • Requests are scoped to a tenant boundary
  • Data access across tenants is prevented by design
  • Core tools behave correctly in a multi-tenant environment
  • Migration and config approach is documented

Source

Deferred feature from llm/plan.md: per-user tenancy.

## Summary Add a tenancy model so AMCS can safely separate data by user, tenant, or workspace instead of assuming a single shared memory space. ## Why Per-user tenancy is listed as a deferred feature in the implementation plan. It becomes important if AMCS is used by multiple users, agents, or client applications that should not share the same thought/project namespace. ## Scope ideas - Define the tenant boundary: user, org, workspace, or account - Add tenant-aware schema and indexing strategy - Update auth context so requests resolve to a tenant - Ensure searches, project lookups, files, skills, and guardrails are tenant-scoped - Consider migration strategy for single-tenant installs - Document security expectations and isolation guarantees ## Acceptance criteria - Requests are scoped to a tenant boundary - Data access across tenants is prevented by design - Core tools behave correctly in a multi-tenant environment - Migration and config approach is documented ## Source Deferred feature from `llm/plan.md`: per-user tenancy.
sgcommand commented 2026-07-15 03:06:21 +00:00
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

Implemented on branch issue-10-per-user-tenancy and opened PR: git.warky[.]dev/wdevs/amcs/pulls/40

Commit: 4b3f0b1b55

Verification:

  • make test passed
  • make build passed

Summary:

  • Auth middleware now propagates API key/OAuth client id as an opaque tenant context.
  • Added tenant_key schema/migration for projects, thoughts, files, learnings, plans, and chat histories.
  • Tenant-scoped project lookup/list/touch, thought CRUD/search/stats, and stored file create/read/list.
  • Added middleware unit test for tenant context propagation.
Implemented on branch `issue-10-per-user-tenancy` and opened PR: git.warky[.]dev/wdevs/amcs/pulls/40 Commit: 4b3f0b1b5526d1e228ba8f21cd7e2da94d4dbf45 Verification: - `make test` passed - `make build` passed Summary: - Auth middleware now propagates API key/OAuth client id as an opaque tenant context. - Added tenant_key schema/migration for projects, thoughts, files, learnings, plans, and chat histories. - Tenant-scoped project lookup/list/touch, thought CRUD/search/stats, and stored file create/read/list. - Added middleware unit test for tenant context propagation.
sgcommand commented 2026-07-15 03:55:09 +00:00
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

CI repair pushed for PR #40.

Branch: issue-10-per-user-tenancy
Commit: e3a4a3c5c7
PR: git.warky[.]dev/wdevs/amcs/pulls/40
Verification:

  • Local make test: passed
  • Local make build: passed
  • Gitea Actions PR run 805: success

Root cause: CI ran go test before building embedded Svelte UI assets, so internal/app/ui_assets.go failed on missing ui/dist. The workflow now builds UI assets before Go tests. Also aligned tenancy DBML/migration metadata for tenant_key on future-scoped tables and dropped the old global project-name unique constraint during migration.

CI repair pushed for PR #40. Branch: issue-10-per-user-tenancy Commit: e3a4a3c5c7c98ed280ffdc91175c274f1aadb3f2 PR: git.warky[.]dev/wdevs/amcs/pulls/40 Verification: - Local make test: passed - Local make build: passed - Gitea Actions PR run 805: success Root cause: CI ran go test before building embedded Svelte UI assets, so internal/app/ui_assets.go failed on missing ui/dist. The workflow now builds UI assets before Go tests. Also aligned tenancy DBML/migration metadata for tenant_key on future-scoped tables and dropped the old global project-name unique constraint during migration.
sgcommand commented 2026-07-15 04:00:27 +00:00
Member
Copy Link
Copy Source

Added the requested tenancy design plan to PR #40.

Branch: issue-10-per-user-tenancy
Commit: cd010fc7a1
Plan: docs/per-user-tenancy-plan.md

Verification:

  • make test: passed
  • make build: passed

The plan covers tenant identity source, schema/model changes, query scoping, migration/backfill, authorization checks, affected backend/API/UI surfaces, test cases, assumptions, and blockers.

Added the requested tenancy design plan to PR #40. Branch: issue-10-per-user-tenancy Commit: cd010fc7a166e71ef60e2d88531079022c7424a0 Plan: docs/per-user-tenancy-plan.md Verification: - make test: passed - make build: passed The plan covers tenant identity source, schema/model changes, query scoping, migration/backfill, authorization checks, affected backend/API/UI surfaces, test cases, assumptions, and blockers.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
architecture
debugging
integration
planned
ux
Compat/Breaking
Breaking change that won't be backward compatible
 Kind/Bug
Something is not working
 Kind/Documentation
Documentation changes
 Kind/Enhancement
Improve existing functionality
 Kind/Feature
New functionality
 Kind/Security
This is security issue
 Kind/Testing
Issue or pull request related to testing
Priority
Critical
1
The priority is critical
Priority
High
2
The priority is high
Priority
Low
4
The priority is low
Priority
Medium
3
The priority is medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
1
Issue has been confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
2
This issue or pull request already exists
Reviewed
Invalid
3
Invalid issue
Reviewed
Won't Fix
3
This issue won't be fixed
Status
Abandoned
3
Somebody has started to work on this but abandoned work
Status
Blocked
1
Something is blocking this issue or pull request
Status
Need More Info
2
Feedback is required to reproduce issue or to continue work
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
hein (Hein) root sam sgcommand (SG Command) warkanum (Warky)
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: wdevs/amcs#10
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?