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.
What the title says, adds a subchapter for specs for Unleash, and a
subchapter for specs for the database
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
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.
The limit card says to contact cs@getunleash if you're at the limits,
but we probably don't want to show that to OSS customers (it's not
terrible, just not very helpful), so let's hide it for OSS.
Instead, we'll ask them to try the community slack.
Screenie:
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.
This PR fixes a minor visual glitch where the initial Unleash load might
display a jumping loading icon. The reason was that the initial
redirect's loader wasn't marked as a fullscreen loader.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2453/validate-patched-data-against-schema
This adds schema validation to patched data, fixing potential issues of
patching data to an invalid state.
This can be easily reproduced by patching a strategy constraints to be
an object (invalid), instead of an array (valid):
```sh
curl -X 'PATCH' \
'http://localhost:4242/api/admin/projects/default/features/test/environments/development/strategies/8cb3fec6-c40a-45f7-8be0-138c5aaa5263' \
-H 'accept: application/json' \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '[
{
"path": "/constraints",
"op": "replace",
"from": "/constraints",
"value": {}
}
]'
```
Unleash will accept this because there's no validation that the patched
data actually looks like a proper strategy, and we'll start seeing
Unleash errors due to the invalid state.
This PR adapts some of our existing logic in the way we handle
validation errors to support any dynamic object. This way we can perform
schema validation with any object and still get the benefits of our
existing validation error handling.
This PR also takes the liberty to expose the full instancePath as
propertyName, instead of only the path's last section. We believe this
has more upsides than downsides, especially now that we support the
validation of any type of object.
This PR adds prometheus metrics for when users attempt to exceed the
limits for a given resource.
The implementation sets up a second function exported from the
ExceedsLimitError file that records metrics and then throws the error.
This could also be a static method on the class, but I'm not sure that'd
be better.
This PR updates the tooltips for the health chart to also include
information on how healthy flags there are. The user could make this
calculation themselves before, but it'd require them to subtract the sum
of stale and potentially stale flags from the total. This makes it so
that they don't have to do the calculation.
I've also included a bar for the healthy flags in the overview, so that
it's easier to see how large a portion it is compared to the others.
Also: clean up some uses of the now-deprecated VFC.
Same as the OIDC changes we merged yesterday, this makes the frontend
ready for disabling SAML configuration page, if the SAML_ environment
variables are set.
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
This PR updates the OpenAPI error converter to also work for errors with
query parameters.
We previously only sent the body of the request along with the error,
which meant that query parameter errors would show up incorrectly.
For instance given a query param with the date format and the invalid
value `01-2020-01`, you'd previously get the message:
> The `from` value must match format "date". You sent undefined
With this change, you'll get this instead:
> The `from` value must match format "date". You sent "01-2020-01".
The important changes here are two things:
- passing both request body and query params
- the 3 lines in `fromOpenApiValidationError` that check where we should
get the value you sent from.
The rest of it is primarily updating tests to send the right arguments
and some slight rewording to more accurately reflect that this can be
either request body or query params.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2435/create-migration-for-a-new-integration-events-table
Adds a DB migration that creates the `integration_events` table:
- `id`: Auto-incrementing primary key;
- `integration_id`: The id of the respective integration (i.e.
integration configuration);
- `created_at`: Date of insertion;
- `state`: Integration event state, as text. Can be anything we'd like,
but I'm thinking this will be something like:
- Success ✅
- Failed ❌
- SuccessWithErrors ⚠️
- `state_details`: Expands on the previous column with more details, as
text. Examples:
- OK. Status code: 200
- Status code: 429 - Rate limit reached
- No access token provided
- `event`: The whole event object, stored as a JSON blob;
- `details`: JSON blob with details about the integration execution.
Will depend on the integration itself, but for example:
- Webhook: Request body
- Slack App: Message text and an array with all the channels we're
posting to
I think this gives us enough flexibility to cover all present and
(possibly) future integrations, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I'm also really torn on what to call this table:
- `integration_events`: Consistent with the feature name. Addons are now
called integrations, so this would be consistent with the new thing;
- `addon_events`: Consistent with the existing `addons` table.
