Trying again, now with a tested function for resolvingIsOss.
Still want to test this on a pro instance in sandbox before we deploy
this to our customers to avoid what happened Friday.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
This is not changing existing logic.
We are creating a new endpoint, which is guarded behind a flag.
---------
Co-authored-by: Simon Hornby <liquidwicked64@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: FredrikOseberg <fredrik.no@gmail.com>
Archived features can be searched now.
This is the backend and small parts of frontend preparing to add
filters, buttons etc in next PR.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
During adding privateProjectsChecker, I saw that events composition root
is not used almost at all.
Refactored code so we do not call new EventService anymore.
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
## About the changes
When reading feature env strategies and there's no segments it returns
empty list of segments now. Previously it was undefined leading to
overly verbose change request diffs.
<img width="669" alt="Screenshot 2024-08-14 at 16 06 14"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1ac6121b-1d6c-48c6-b4ce-3f26c53c6694">
### Important files
<!-- PRs can contain a lot of changes, but not all changes are equally
important. Where should a reviewer start looking to get an overview of
the changes? Are any files particularly important? -->
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
Previously people were able to send random data to feature type. Now it
is validated.
Fixes https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/issues/7751
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
This PR allows you to gradually lower constraint values, even if they're
above the limits.
It does, however, come with a few caveats because of how Unleash deals
with constraints:
Constraints are just json blobs. They have no IDs or other
distinguishing features. Because of this, we can't compare the current
and previous state of a specific constraint.
What we can do instead, is to allow you to lower the amount of
constraint values if and only if the number of constraints hasn't
changed. In this case, we assume that you also haven't reordered the
constraints (not possible from the UI today). That way, we can compare
constraint values between updated and existing constraints based on
their index in the constraint list.
It's not foolproof, but it's a workaround that you can use. There's a
few edge cases that pop up, but that I don't think it's worth trying to
cover:
Case: If you **both** have too many constraints **and** too many
constraint values
Result: You won't be allowed to lower the amount of constraints as long
as the amount of strategy values is still above the limit.
Workaround: First, lower the amount of constraint values until you're
under the limit and then lower constraints. OR, set the constraint you
want to delete to a constraint that is trivially true (e.g. `currentTime
> yesterday` ). That will essentially take that constraint out of the
equation, achieving the same end result.
Case: You re-order constraints and at least one of them has too many
values
Result: You won't be allowed to (except for in the edge case where the
one with too many values doesn't move or switches places with another
one with the exact same amount of values).
Workaround: We don't need one. The order of constraints has no effect on
the evaluation.
This PR updates the limit validation for constraint numbers on a single
strategy. In cases where you're already above the limit, it allows you
to still update the strategy as long as you don't add any **new**
constraints (that is: the number of constraints doesn't increase).
A discussion point: I've only tested this with unit tests of the method
directly. I haven't tested that the right parameters are passed in from
calling functions. The main reason being that that would involve
updating the fake strategy and feature stores to sync their flag lists
(or just checking that the thrown error isn't a limit exceeded error),
because right now the fake strategy store throws an error when it
doesn't find the flag I want to update.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2453/validate-patched-data-against-schema
This adds schema validation to patched data, fixing potential issues of
patching data to an invalid state.
This can be easily reproduced by patching a strategy constraints to be
an object (invalid), instead of an array (valid):
```sh
curl -X 'PATCH' \
'http://localhost:4242/api/admin/projects/default/features/test/environments/development/strategies/8cb3fec6-c40a-45f7-8be0-138c5aaa5263' \
-H 'accept: application/json' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '[
{
"path": "/constraints",
"op": "replace",
"from": "/constraints",
"value": {}
}
]'
```
Unleash will accept this because there's no validation that the patched
data actually looks like a proper strategy, and we'll start seeing
Unleash errors due to the invalid state.
This PR adapts some of our existing logic in the way we handle
validation errors to support any dynamic object. This way we can perform
schema validation with any object and still get the benefits of our
existing validation error handling.
This PR also takes the liberty to expose the full instancePath as
propertyName, instead of only the path's last section. We believe this
has more upsides than downsides, especially now that we support the
validation of any type of object.
This PR adds prometheus metrics for when users attempt to exceed the
limits for a given resource.
The implementation sets up a second function exported from the
ExceedsLimitError file that records metrics and then throws the error.
This could also be a static method on the class, but I'm not sure that'd
be better.
This PR adds a feature flag limit to Unleash. It's set up to be
overridden in Enterprise, where we turn the limit up.
I've also fixed a couple bugs in the fake feature flag store.
This PR adds metrics tracking for:
- "maxConstraintValues": the highest number of constraint values that
are in use
- "maxConstraintsPerStrategy": the highest number of constraints used on
a strategy
It updates the existing feature strategy read model that returns max
metrics for other strategy-related things.
It also moves one test into a more fitting describe block.
This PR is part of #4380 - Remove legacy `/api/feature` endpoint.
## About the changes
### Frontend
- Removes the useFeatures hook
- Removes the part of StrategyView that displays features using this
strategy (not been working since v4.4)
- Removes 2 unused features entries from routes
### Backend
- Removes the /api/admin/features endpoint
- Moves a couple of non-feature related tests (auth etc) to use
/admin/projects endpoint instead
- Removes a test that was directly related to the removed endpoint
- Moves a couple of tests to the projects/features endpoint
- Reworks some tests to fetch features from projects features endpoint
and strategies from project strategies
