We had to make some updates to let the compiler know about the types and
fix an issue with nested objects not being compared as objects (instead
as strings), but this saves us a few lines and is hopefully more
readable.
The `FeatureToggleListTable` is nested directly within `PageContent`.
`PageContent` was cause for removing the skeleton from the table.
However, this is unnecessary because the table has its own loader that
manages the skeletons. Therefore, `PageContent` does not require a
loader.
This PR adds a 'change-request-conflict-created' event whenever someone
save a strategy update for a strategy that's used in either pending or
scheduled change requests.
Data for pending change requests will only be sent if change requests
are enabled. Data for scheduled change requests will be sent regardless.
Getting this data is somewhat involved, so I've extracted as much of the
logic into a separate file as possible.
The event re-uses the existing `change_request` metric and sends the
following data for each change request that we discover conflicts on:
```ts
{
state: ChangeRequestState,
changeRequest: string, // <unleash identifier>#<change request id>
action: 'edit-strategy',
eventType: 'conflict-created'
}
```
There's only one action for this for now, but we could expand this event
to things such as strategy deletion, feature archival, in the future.
That said, I'd be happy to take it out.
## Discussion points
### Has the strategy actually been updated?
This does not check whether a strategy has actually changed before
emitting the event, only that you save your strategy changes.
This assumes that most people will simply close the modal by
clicking/tapping outside it or using the escape key instead of pressing
save.
However, it will likely lead to some false positives. If we think that
is an issue, I would suggest adding a check that something in the
strategy has actually changed in a follow-up PR.
Added conflict count to CR metrics and CR id.
Something to think about:
There was idea that we can aggregate this data based on CR id, but CR id
is just a number from 0 to x. So it will not be unique across instances.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
Includes some small fixes and improvements to the actions table UI:
- Fix webhook icon not properly loading
- Make actions execution param names bold in the tooltip
- Make filters param names bold in the tooltip
Only triggers if there is any rows in client instances that have
sdk_version: unleash-edge with version < 17.0.0
The function that checks this memoizes the check for 10 minutes to avoid
scanning the client instances table too often.
This PR fixes a bug in the displayed value of the conflict list so that
it shows the value it would update to instead of the snapshot value.
In doing so, it updates the logic of the algorithm to:
1. if the snapshot value and the current value are the same, it's not a
conflict (it's an intended change)
2. If the snapshot value differs from the current value, it is a
conflict if and only if the value in the change differs from the current
value. Otherwise, it's not a conflict.
The new test cases are:
- it shows a diff for a property if the snapshot and live version differ
for that property and the changed value is different from the live
version
- it does not show a diff for a property if the live version and the
change have the same value, even if the snapshot differs from the live
version
- it does not show a diff for a property if the snapshot and the live
version are the same
I noticed some manual `hasAccess` usages in permission guards due to the
fact that `PermissionGuard` does not accept `project` and `environment`.
This PR adds this support to `PermissionGuard` so we can adapt these
`hasAccess` checks to use it instead, adding consistency and cleaning
things up.
This PR does not include these adaptations however, it only adds the
optional properties to the component. We can address these at a later
point.
Connected to [#5932](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/5932) -
This starts using the new permissions in addition to the old
UPDATE_PROJECT permission. That way, if you're happy with
UPDATE_PROJECT, you don't need to change.
However, you can now add more fine grained permissions for both READ and
WRITE operations.
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.
This changes the badge element to prefer spans instead of divs. The
primary difference between spans and divs is that spans are inline and
divs are block. Styling-wise, we override the display property anyway.
Semantically, most all of the badges are used inline instead of on
their own block level, so this change seems sensible. You can still
provide `div` as the `as` prop if you need to.
