To check that users do indeed have permissions to update the roles from
project-service, we've been depending on req.user.id.
We had one error on Friday March 8th, where we managed to send
undefined/null to a method that requires a number. This PR assumes that
if we have an API token, and we have admin permissions and userId is not
set we're a legacy admin token.
It uses the util method for extractUserId(req: IAuthRequest | IApiRequest), so if we've passed through the apiTokenMiddleware first, we'll have userId -42, if we haven't, we'll get -1337.
## 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?
In order to prevent users from being able to assign roles/permissions
they don't have, this PR adds a check that the user performing the
action either is Admin, Project owner or has the same role they are
trying to grant/add.
This addAccess method is only used from Enterprise, so there will be a
separate PR there, updating how we return the roles list for a user, so
that our frontend can only present the roles a user is actually allowed
to grant.
This adds the validation to the backend to ensure that even if the
frontend thinks we're allowed to add any role to any user here, the
backend can be smart enough to stop it.
We should still update frontend as well, so that it doesn't look like we
can add roles we won't be allowed to.
## About the changes
Our frontend API creates new instances of unleash-client-proxy. Because
this is by-design, we don't want to log a warning that was designed to
warn users about potential misconfiguration of Unleash Proxy.
As an extra, I'm renaming ProxyController to FrontendAPIController to
better reflect the intent of this controller.
## 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):
This is how the matrix looks like
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
This change takes the (now rather involved) type used to send CR
schedule suspension emails and extracts it into a proper exported type.
This will allow us to import it in enterprise as well instead of
redefining it.
This PR updates the change request email sending method to handle the
recent changes we have made. That means that the email now:
- says that change requests have been suspended instead of saying that
application will fail.
- handles cases where segments or strategies have been updated causing
potential conflicts.
I have updated the email templates and made some adjustments to the
email sending method. To make the transition from one to the other
easier, I have kept the original method as an interim solution until
enterprise has switched over.
## About the changes
getAllActive from api-tokens store is the second most frequent query
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>
Adds a new Inactive Users list component to admin/users for easier cleanup of users that are counted as inactive: No sign of activity (logins or api token usage) in the last 180 days.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Leek <david@getunleash.io>
In the beginning we used process.nextTick() as a trick to load some data
initally in the constructor of a service.
This is a bad pattern and we should generally avoid any async operations
in the constructor. Today we have two alternatives:
1. Defer loading until data is needed (wrap it in async)
2. Use the schdule-service.
Usually maintenance mode is disabled. If the call throws, which we see a
lot of when a unleash instance is in terminating state, we should return
a default value.
By having it throw inside of the memoizee function, the response is not
cached, and it will trigger new calls until it return a cachable result.
## About the changes
the created_by_user_id data migration from resolving events.created_by
(for both events and features) now emits events on how many rows were
updated.
Adds listeners for these events that records these metrics with
prometheus
## About the changes
This PR replaces the old systemUser -1 in user-service.ts with the new
SYSTEM_USER -1337 and adds a migration to move events created_by = -1 to
-1337
## Discussion points
Does it make sense to do both of these things? Or should we skip the
migration? How would this behave in a large system with hundreds of
thousands of events, should this be split up?
## About the changes
This was spotted while testing automated actions. Steps to reproduce:
1. Add an editor user
2. Get a PAT for the editor user
3. As Admin create a feature in a project where the editor user is not a
member and enable the feature
4. Try using the editor's PAT to modify the feature
5. As the editor create a project (you'd be made owner) and try the same
request but just change the project name for the new project just
created (don't change anything else)
**Expected behavior**: you can't disable the feature
**Actual behavior**: the feature is disabled
This does not happen when trying to turn on a flag because during the
turn-on process we do validate if the feature belongs to project when we
call updateStrategy:
c18a7c0dc2/src/lib/features/feature-toggle/feature-toggle-service.ts (L1751-L1764)
So, this was causing a lot of ERROR in our logs, due to the metric
having gotten an extra label the last month.
Two things for this fix.
1. add the missing label to the two calls that did not have it added
2. update the log line to include the error as another argument to the
logger, so we actually get a stacktrace from the error.
## About the changes
Whenever we get a call from an admin token we want to associate it with
the [admin token
user](4d42093a07/src/lib/types/core.ts (L34-L41)).
This should give us the needed audit for this type of calls that
currently were lacking a user id (we only stored a string with the token
name in the event log).
We consciously decided not to use `id` as the property to prevent any
unforeseen side effects. The reason is that only `IUser` type has an id
and adding an id to `IApiUser` might lead to confusion.
## About the changes
EventsService is a dependency in most of our services. This creates
helper methods to create them easily and replace a few places where
we're creating them manually
