So, since our assumption about client instances ended up being wrong (or, less than stable).
This PR moves the EdgeUpgradeBanner to be displayed if the featureflag
displayEdgeBanner is enabled. That way, if customers comes back and says
they have upgraded but still get the banner, we can remove them from the
segment.
## 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?
Since we're polling for updates to max revision id every second, and
listening for update events for revision id in the proxy repository then
running a refresh interval of 20secs in the proxy repo refresh seems
excessive.
This PR changes the frequency of the refresh to once per 45mins.
## About the changes
This is a rough initial version as a PoC for a permission matrix.
This is only available after enabling the flag `userAccessUIEnabled`
that is set to true by default in local development.
The access was added to the users' admin page but could be embedded in
different contexts (e.g. when assigning a role to a user):
![image](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/455064/3f541f46-99bb-409b-a0fe-13f5d3f9572a)
This is how the matrix looks like
![screencapture-localhost-3000-admin-users-3-access-2024-02-13-12_15_44](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/455064/183deeb6-a0dc-470f-924c-f435c6196407)
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
## About the changes
getAllActive from api-tokens store is the second most frequent query
![image](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/455064/63c5ae76-bb62-41b2-95b4-82aca59a7c16)
To prevent starving our db connections, we can cache this data that
rarely changes and clear the cache when we see changes. Because we will
only clear changes in the node receiving the change we're only caching
the data for 1 minute.
This should give us some room to test if this solution will work
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
## About the changes
Sets data migration of features and events created_by_user_id to
disabled by default
Map to promise and await all in created by user id migration for features
## About the changes
Adds a scheduled task that every 5 seconds updates 500 entries in the
features table setting `created_by_user_id`.
It does this by looking at the related event, checks created_by and
joins users table for match on username or email, and joins api_tokens
table on username matches. Then picks either a users id if set, or uses
-42 (admin token user)
Previously we used a killswitch and returned 404 if the feature was
enabled. This flips that to a default disabled toggle, that has to be
turned on to handle old Edge (pre 17.0.0) posting bulk metrics
This PR will allow us to use a feature flag with variants to control
whether or not we should show the comments field of the feedback form.
This will allow us to see whether we can increase feedback collection if
we reduce the load on the customer.
Since we've now added PAT's we really do recommend switching to those,
or for enterprises, we recommend using service accounts.
Admin tokens have an obvious disadvantage in that they're not connected
to any user, so actions performed by them are harder to audit.
This PR adds a killswitch for turning it off, in preparation for
deprecating them and ultimately removing them in the future.
## About the changes
This allows us to encrypt emails at signup for demo users to further
secure our demo instance. Currently, emails are anonymized before
displaying events performed by demo users. But this means that emails
are stored at rest in our DB. By encrypting the emails at login, we're
adding another layer of protection.
This can be enabled with a flag and requires the encryption key and the
initialization vector (IV for short) to be present as environment
variables.
If the kill switch is enabled unleash returns 404 and a json body explaining why a 404 was given, encouraging users to upgrade to the most recent version of Edge.
## Why
Currently AWS API Gateway doesn't have compression enabled by default,
this PR will make it easier to for example deploy Unleash over to AWS
Lambda without further configuration in API Gateway, frameworks like
Serverless requires a bit more work to set up compression and some times
one might not need compression at all.
## How
Create a new config flag called `disableCompression` which will not
include `compression` middleware in express' instance when set as true.
### 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.
To prepare for 5.6 GA,
I've done a find through both Frontend and Backend here to remove the
usages of the flag. Seems like the flag was only in use in the frontend.
@nunogois can you confirm?
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1531/rename-message-banners-to-banners
This renames "message banners" to "banners".
I also added support for external banners coming from a `banner` flag
instead of only `messageBanner` flag, so we can eventually migrate to
the new one in the future if we want.
### 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.
This PR is the first step in separating the client and admin stores.
Currently our feature toggle services uses the client store to serve
multiple purposes.
Admin API uses the feature toggle service to serve both the feature
toggle list and playground features, while the client API uses the
feature toggle service to serve client features. The admin API can
change often and have very different requirements than the client API,
which changes infrequently and generally keeps the same stable structure
for long periods of time. This architecture is error prone, because when
you need to make changes to the admin API, you can very easily affect
the client API.
I aim to put up a stone wall between the two APIs. Complete separation
between the two APIs, at the cost of some duplication.
In this PR I have created a feature oriented architecture for client
features and disconnected the client API from the feature toggle
service. It now goes through it's own service to it's own store. For
feature toggle service I have duplicated and replaced the functionality
that serves /api/admin/features, I have kept a lot of the ugliness in
the code and haven't removed anything in order to avoid breaking
changes.
Next steps:
* Move playground to admin API
* Remove client-feature-toggle-store from feature-toggle-service
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1494/re-order-message-banners
- Re-orders message banners to fit into this logic:
>1. Maintenance banner
>2. External message banner(s) - Most likely coming from Unleash
>3. Internal message banner(s)
- Renames the feature flag to better reflect the feature behavior;
- Lays a basic skeleton structure for this new feature;
## About the changes
This transactional implementation decorates a service with a
transactional method that removes the need to start transactions in the
method using the service.
This is a gradual rollout with a feature toggle, just because
transactions are not easy.
## About the changes
Adds optional support for specifying JSON templates for datadog message
payload
![image](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/707867/eb7c838a-7abf-441e-972e-ddd7ada07efa)
### 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? -->
`frontend/src/component/integrations/IntegrationForm/IntegrationParameters/IntegrationParameter/IntegrationParameterEnableWithDropdown.tsx`
- a new component comprising of a text field and a dropdown menu
`src/lib/addons/datadog.ts` - Where the integration is taking place
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
- Should I have implemented the new component type as a specifiable
addon parameter type in definitions? Felt a bit YAGNI/Premature
- Would like input on naming and the new component etc
Fix issues uncovered when reviewing integrations list and form.
- YouTube CSP
- Text content and formatting
- Margins
- Update old integration icons
- Fix headers in dark theme
Adds `number` as possible payload type for variant.
Adds a flag to enable the feature
Updates all relevant models and schemas
Adds the option to the UI
Closes: #
[1-1357](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-1357/support-number-in-variant-payload)
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
Adds a first iteration of feature flag naming patterns. Currently behind a flag.
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
Co-authored-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>