https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2658/create-eventtimeline-feature-flag
Adds a new `eventTimeline` feature flag for the new event timeline
feature.
I think `eventTimeline` is an appropriate name given the feature
description and the way it is evolving, but I'm open to suggestions.
~~This also assumes that this feature will target OSS.~~ Confirmed that
this will be a premium feature.
## Background
In #6380 we fixed a privilege escalation bug that allowed members of a
project that had permission to add users to the project with roles that
had a higher permission set than themselves. The PR linked essentially
constricts you only be able to assign users to roles that you possess
yourself if you are not an Admin or Project owner.
This fix broke expectations for another customer who needed to have a
project owner without the DELETE_PROJECT permission. The fix above made
it so that their custom project owner role only was able to assign users
to the project with the role that they posessed.
## Fix
Instead of looking directly at which role the role granter has, this PR
addresses the issue by making the assessment based on the permission
sets of the user and the roles to be granted. If the granter has all the
permissions of the role being granted, the granter is permitted to
assign the role.
## Other considerations
The endpoint to get roles was changed in this PR. It previously only
retrieved the roles that the user had in the project. This no-longer
makes sense because the user should be able to see other project roles
than the one they themselves hold when assigning users to the project.
The drawback of returning all project roles is that there may be a
project role in the list that the user does not have access to assign,
because they do not hold all the permissions required of the role. This
was discussed internally and we decided that it's an acceptable
trade-off for now because the complexities of returning a role list
based on comparing permissions set is not trivial. We would have to
retrieve each project role with permissions from the database, and run
the same in-memory check against the users permission to determine which
roles to return from this endpoint. Instead we opted for returning all
project roles and display an error if you try to assign a role that you
do not have access to.
## Follow up
When this is merged, there's no longer need for the frontend logic that
filters out roles in the role assignment form. I deliberately left this
out of the scope for this PR because I couldn't wrap my head around
everything that was going on there and I thought it was better to pair
on this with @chriswk or @nunogois in order to make sure we get this
right as the logic for this filtering seemed quite complex and was
touching multiple different components.
---------
Co-authored-by: Fredrik Strand Oseberg <fredrikstrandoseberg@Fredrik-sin-MacBook-Pro.local>
This appears to have been an oversight in the original implementation
of this endpoint. This seems to be the primary point of this
permission. Additionally, the docs mention that this permission should
allow you to do just that.
Note: I've not added any tests for this, because we don't typically add
tests for it. If we have an example to follow, I'd be very happy to add
it, though
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/7795 mistakenly included a
mention that these environment variables can be used:
- `UNLEASH_DEFAULT_ADMIN_NAME`
- `UNLEASH_DEFAULT_ADMIN_EMAIL`
However that's not really the case, since we decided to remove their
respective implementation before merging that PR.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2592/updateimprove-a-segment-via-api-call
Related to https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/issues/7987
This does not make the endpoint necessarily better - It's still a PUT
that acts as a PUT in some ways (expects specific required fields to be
present, resets the project to `null` if it's not included in the body)
and a PATCH in others (ignores most fields if they're not included in
the body). We need to have a more in-depth discussion about developing
long-term strategies for our API and respective OpenAPI spec.
However this at least includes the proper schema for the request body,
which is slightly better than before.
Clearing onboarding tables, because the data is invalid and we want to
start tracking all of this for only new customers.
This migration must be applied after the new logic is implemented.
We are observing incorrect data in Prometheus, which is consistently
non-reproducible. After a restart, the issue does not occur, but if the
pods run for an extended period, they seem to enter a strange state
where the counters become entangled and start sharing arbitrary values
that are added to the counters.
For example, the `feature_lifecycle_stage_entered` counter gets an
arbitrary value, such as 12, added when `inc()` is called. The
`exceedsLimitErrorCounter` shows the same behavior, and the code
implementation is identical.
We also tested some existing `increase()` counters, and they do not
suffer from this issue.
All calls to `counter.labels(labels).inc(`) will be replaced by
`counter.increment()` to try to mitigate the issue.
Previously we expected the tag to look like `type:value`. Now we allow
everything after first colon, as the value and not break query
`type:this:still:is:value`.
Fixes a bug where if you had API keys using different casing for the
same type, they'd come out as different types in the API token count
map. To get around it, we normalize the keys to lowercase before
inserting them into the map, taking into account any previous values
that might have existed for that type.
Should fix issues like this:
Updates the instance stats endpoint with
- maxEnvironmentStrategies
- maxConstraints
- maxConstraintValues
It adds the following rows to the front end table:
- segments (already in the payload, just not used for the table before)
- API tokens (separate rows for type, + one for total) (also existed
before, but wasn't listed)
- Highest number of strategies used for a single flag in a single
environment
- Highest number of constraints used on a single strategy
- Highest number of values used for a single constraint
Turns out we've been trying to return API token data in instance stats
for a while, but that the serialization has failed. Serializing a JS map
just yields an empty object.
This PR fixes that serialization and also adds API tokens to the
instance stats schema (it wasn't before, but we did return it). Adding
it to the schema is also part of making resource usage visible as part
of the soft limits project.
