This PR adds the first version of the resource limit documentation. It
also corrects the link in the `Limit` component.
In addition to the new limits from the soft limits project, I've also
added the limits from the signals project.
## Discussion points
I've set the Pro resource limits to projects and envs to the same value
as on the [plans & pricing](https://www.getunleash.io/pricing) page
instead of the actual hard soft limit. I think that makes messaging
easier and more consistent.
However, this does present us with a bit of a problem. Because we've
been pretty consistent at saying "no, you can't have more projects" for
Pro. But we're saying it's easy to change (when in actuality the limit
isn't enforced 💁🏼 )
## Screenie
It looks a little bit like this (but check the files or preview for the
actual text content)
Updates feature availability.
Banners is a feature that is already GA'd since Unleash 5.7, so beta
availability seems irrelevant now.
We removed the mention of planning to GA Signals & Actions in 5.12,
since that's not happening and we would prefer not to include these
mentions in the future.
Hello,
As discussed with @sighphyre, there were a number of problems with the
examples docs. This addresses the most pressing ones, namely:
- Corrected the link to the Jira plugin
- Added deprecation warning to Jira Server pages
- Removed the incomplete markdown table at the end of articles, and the
references to it
---------
Co-authored-by: Simon Hornby <liquidwicked64@gmail.com>
This change addresses the question in #6542 about using non-string
operators on string values by clarifying that Unleash SDK converts the
string values before performing the comparison.
<!-- 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
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
<!-- Does it close an issue? Multiple? -->
Closes #
<!-- (For internal contributors): Does it relate to an issue on public
roadmap? -->
<!--
Relates to [roadmap](https://github.com/orgs/Unleash/projects/10) item:
#
-->
### 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? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
## About the changes
When edge is configured to automatically generate tokens, it requires
the token to be present in all unleash instances.
It's behind a flag which enables us to turn it on on a case by case
scenario.
The risk of this implementation is that we'd be adding load to the
database in the middleware that evaluates tokens (which are present in
mostly all our API calls. We only query when the token is missing but
because the /client and /frontend endpoints which will be the affected
ones are high throughput, we want to be extra careful to avoid DDoSing
ourselves
## Alternatives:
One alternative would be that we merge the two endpoints into one.
Currently, Edge does the following:
If the token is not valid, it tries to create a token using a service
account token and /api/admin/create-token endpoint. Then it uses the
token generated (which is returned from the prior endpoint) to query
/api/frontend. What if we could call /api/frontend with the same service
account we use to create the token? It may sound risky but if the same
application holding the service account token with permission to create
a token, can call /api/frontend via the generated token, shouldn't it be
able to call the endpoint directly?
The purpose of the token is authentication and authorization. With the
two tokens we are authenticating the same app with 2 different
authorization scopes, but because it's the same app we are
authenticating, can't we just use one token and assume that the app has
both scopes?
If the service account already has permissions to create a token and
then use that token for further actions, allowing it to directly call
/api/frontend does not necessarily introduce new security risks. The
only risk is allowing the app to generate new tokens. Which leads to the
third alternative: should we just remove this option from edge?
This change updates the change request scheduling docs to include
information about what happens when a strategy or segment is updated
in the background, as well as updated information about the emails
that it sends out.
We want to deprecate and eventually remove the option for admin tokens.
This PR updates the docs to inform readers about the deprecation as well
as recommending what they can use instead.
This PR describes in closer detail what happens when the user who
scheduled a change request is deleted. It mentions the new suspended
state and what the user can do to get out of it.
This commit updates the change request docs to talk about how the new
scheduled state works.
The subsection is marked as "in development", saying that it can
change at any moment until the feature is released.
As discovered in the recent segments breakathon, the docs aren't very
clear about how conflicts are handled. This PR better documents when
they can't be deleted or moved. It also mentions the edge case where a
segment is used in an archived flag (it still can't be deleted, so you
must either delete the flag, or revive it and remove the segment)
Added a detailed explanation into how frontend / client-side SDKs behave
with regards to fetching multiple feature flags and network
connectivity.
Content has been reviewed/approved by engineering rotation team (Simon
and Chris).
## About the changes
Refactor the main nav, with the following goals:
* Communicate the value of each section vs the format (ex:
“Understanding Unleash” vs “Topic Guides”)
* Make space for the Feature Flag tutorials section that we’re starting
to build
* Scope updates to navigation and pages that need updates based on new
URLs & organization
* Update URLs to follow the new hierarchy without breaking links (adding
redirects & editing internal links between pages as needed)
### Important files
sidebar.js
docusaurus.config.js
## Discussion points
* Redirects can't be tested out of prod, which is a bummer :/
* Some URLs have been preserved untouched while we monitor for potential
negative SEO impact of client-side redirects
* It's a large PR (sorry). Nav changes and file movements impacted lots
of files.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
### What
This PR makes the rate limit for user creation and simple login (our
password based login) configurable in the same way you can do
metricsRateLimiting.
### Worth noting
In addition this PR adds a `rate_limit{endpoint, method}` prometheus
gauge, which gets the data from the UnleashConfig.
### What
The heaviest requests we serve are the register and metrics POSTs from
our SDKs/clients.
This PR adds ratelimiting to /api/client/register, /api/client/metrics,
/api/frontend/register and /api/frontend/metrics with a default set to
6000 requests per minute (or 100 rps) for each of the endpoints.
It will be overrideable by the environment variables documented.
### Points of discussion
@kwasniew already suggested using featuretoggles with variants to
control the rate per clientId. I struggled to see if we could
dynamically update the middleware after initialisation, so this attempt
will need a restart of the pod to update the request limit.
