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>
Changed the url of event search to search/events to align with
search/features. With that created a search controller to keep all
searches under there.
Added first test.
This PR adds Grafana gauges for all the existing resource limits. The
primary purpose is to be able to use this in alerting. Secondarily, we
can also use it to get better insights into how many customers have
increased their limits, as well as how many people are approaching their
limit, regdardless of whether it's been increased or not.
## Discussion points
### Implementation
The first approach I took (in
87528b4c67),
was to add a new gauge for each resource limit. However, there's a lot
of boilerplate for it.
I thought doing it like this (the current implementation) would make it
easier. We should still be able to use the labelName to collate this in
Grafana, as far as I understand? As a bonus, we'd automatically get new
resource limits when we add them to the schema.
``` tsx
const resourceLimit = createGauge({
name: 'resource_limit',
help: 'The maximum number of resources allowed.',
labelNames: ['resource'],
});
// ...
for (const [resource, limit] of Object.entries(config.resourceLimits)) {
resourceLimit.labels({ resource }).set(limit);
}
```
That way, when checking the stats, we should be able to do something
like this:
``` promql
resource_limit{resource="constraintValues"}
```
### Do we need to reset gauges?
I noticed that we reset gauges before setting values in them all over
the place. I don't know if that's necessary. I'd like to get that double
clarified before merging this.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2501/adapt-origin-middleware-to-stop-logging-ui-requests-and-start
This adapts the new origin middleware to stop logging UI requests (too
noisy) and adds new Prometheus metrics.
<img width="745" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d0c7f51d-feb6-4ff5-b856-77661be3b5a9">
This should allow us to better analyze this data. If we see a lot of API
requests, we can dive into the logs for that instance and check the
logged data, like the user agent.
This PR adds some helper methods to make listening and emitting metric
events more strict in terms of types. I think it's a positive change
aligned with our scouting principle, but if you think it's complex and
does not belong here I'm happy with dropping it.
Add ability to format format event as Markdown in generic webhooks,
similar to Datadog integration.
Closes https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/issues/7646
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2469/keep-the-latest-event-for-each-integration-configuration
This makes it so we keep the latest event for each integration
configuration, along with the previous logic of keeping the latest 100
events of the last 2 hours.
This should be a cheap nice-to-have, since now we can always know what
the latest integration event looked like for each integration
configuration. This will tie-in nicely with the next task of making the
latest integration event state visible in the integration card.
Also improved the clarity of the auto-deletion explanation in the modal.
This PR adds the UI part of feature flag collaborators. Collaborators are hidden on windows smaller than size XL because we're not sure how to deal with them in those cases yet.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2439/create-new-integration-events-endpointhttps://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2436/create-new-integration-event-openapi-schemas
This adds a new `/events` endpoint to the Addons API, allowing us to
fetch integration events for a specific integration configuration id.
Also includes:
- `IntegrationEventsSchema`: New schema to represent the response object
of the list of integration events;
- `yarn schema:update`: New `package.json` script to update the OpenAPI
spec file;
- `BasePaginationParameters`: This is copied from Enterprise. After
merging this we should be able to refactor Enterprise to use this one
instead of the one it has, so we don't repeat ourselves;
We're also now correctly representing the BIGSERIAL as BigInt (string +
pattern) in our OpenAPI schema. Otherwise our validation would complain,
since we're saying it's a number in the schema but in fact returning a
string.
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.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2450/register-integration-events-webhook
Registers integration events in the **Webhook** integration.
Even though this touches a lot of files, most of it is preparation for
the next steps. The only actual implementation of registering
integration events is in the **Webhook** integration. The rest will
follow on separate PRs.
Here's an example of how this looks like in the database table:
```json
{
"id": 7,
"integration_id": 2,
"created_at": "2024-07-18T18:11:11.376348+01:00",
"state": "failed",
"state_details": "Webhook request failed with status code: ECONNREFUSED",
"event": {
"id": 130,
"data": null,
"tags": [],
"type": "feature-environment-enabled",
"preData": null,
"project": "default",
"createdAt": "2024-07-18T17:11:10.821Z",
"createdBy": "admin",
"environment": "development",
"featureName": "test",
"createdByUserId": 1
},
"details": {
"url": "http://localhost:1337",
"body": "{ \"id\": 130, \"type\": \"feature-environment-enabled\", \"createdBy\": \"admin\", \"createdAt\": \"2024-07-18T17: 11: 10.821Z\", \"createdByUserId\": 1, \"data\": null, \"preData\": null, \"tags\": [], \"featureName\": \"test\", \"project\": \"default\", \"environment\": \"development\" }"
}
}
```
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.
