## 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.
Lots of work here, mostly because I didn't want to turn off the
`noImplicitAnyLet` lint. This PR tries its best to type all the untyped
lets biome complained about (Don't ask me how many hours that took or
how many lints that was >200...), which in the future will force test
authors to actually type their global variables setup in `beforeAll`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
Was having some trouble running these migration tests locally due to
`dbm` not correctly picking up the passed in config. This fixes it by
setting the custom config property after it has been initialized, always
overriding any wrong values.
PS: I think I found the issue. `dbm` was prioritizing my `DATABASE_URL`
for some reason, as I started having issues when it was set, and stopped
having issues when I unset it.
I still think this is a good change, as it prevents similar
hard-to-debug issues in the future.
To help clarify this, running this locally:
- `export
DATABASE_URL=postgres://unleash_user:passord@localhost:5432/unleash`
- `yarn test dedupe-permissions`
Fails on `main`, but passes on this branch. For some reason the `dbm`
instance prioritizes whatever is set in `DATABASE_URL` instead of the
options that are passed in `getInstance`.
## About the changes
Migrations for:
- Adds column is_system to users
- Inserts unleash_system_user id -1337 to users
includes `is_system: false` in the activeUsers and activeAccounts where filter
Tested by running:
`
select * into users_pre_check from users where id > -1;
delete from users where id > -1;
`
before starting unleash, then inspecting users table after unleash has
started and verifying that an 'admin' user has been created.
---------
Co-authored-by: Christopher Kolstad <chriswk@getunleash.ai>
## About the changes
Adds the new nullable column created_by_user_id to the data used by
feature-tag-store and feature-tag-service. Also updates openapi schemas.
### What
Adds `createdByUserId` to all events exposed by unleash. In addition
this PR updates all tests and usages of the methods in this codebase to
include the required number.
This PR fixes the issue discussed in SR-234, where you would get a 200
OK response even if your POST request to
`/api/admin/projects/<project-name>/access` contains invalid data (and
nothing is persisted).
Adding new project overview endpoint and deprecating the old one.
The new one has extra info about feature types, but does not have
features anymore, because features are coming from search endpoint.
## About the changes
Add user ids to group changes. This also modifies the payload of group created to include only the user id and creates events for SSO sync functionality
This adds more data to the setting events, so that its possible to see
what has changed
Used to look like:
```
{
"id": "maintenance.mode"
}
```
Now it looks like this:
```
{
"id": "maintenance.mode",
"enabled": false
}
```
because this is setting events, the default behaviour is to hide the content.
This PR checks that the unleash instance is an enterprise instance
before fetching change request data. This is to prevent Change Request
usage from preventing OSS users from deleting segments (when they don't
have access to change requests).
This PR also does a little bit of refactoring (which we can remove if
you want)
This PR updates the returned value about segments to also include the CR
title and to be one list item per strategy per change request. This
means that if the same strategy is used multiple times in multiple
change requests, they each get their own line (as has been discussed
with Nicolae).
Because of this, this pr removes a collection step in the query and
fixes some test cases.
The previous check would return `false` if the value was 0, causing a
bug where the usage data wouldn't be included.
This also adds tests to ensure that usage data for CR segments is
propagated correctly because that's where I first encountered the issue.
Before this fix, if the values were 0, the data would display like the
bottom element in the screenshot:
This PR changes the behavior of the API a little bit. Instead of
removing any strategies from `changeRequestStrategies` that are also
in `strategies`, we keep them in instead.
The reason for this is that the overview of where a segment is used is
incomplete if it shows only strategies but not CRs. Imagine this:
You want to delete a segment, but you're told it's only used in strategy
S.
So you go and remove it from strategy S, but then you're told it's
suddenly used in CRs A, B, and C. This is now a two-step operation
with a bad surprise. Instead, we could show you immediately that this
segment is used in strategy S and CRs A, B, and C.
This PR handles the case where a single strategy is used in multiple
change requests. Instead of listing the strategy several times in the
output, we consolidate the entries and add a new `changeRequestIds`
property. This is a non-empty list that points to all the change
requests it is used in.
This is required for us to be able to link back to the change requests
from the UI overview.
This PR changes the payload of the strategiesBySegment endpoint when the
flag is active. In addition to returning just the strategies, the object
will also contain a new property, called `changeRequestStrategies`
containing the strategies that are used in change requests.
This PR does not update the schema. That can be done later when the
changes go into beta. This also allows us some time to iterate on the
payload without changing the public API.
## Discussion points:
Should `strategies` and `changeRequestStrategies` ever contain
duplicates? Take this scenario:
- Strategy S uses segment T.
- There is an open change request that updates the list of segments for
S to T and a new segment U.
- In this case, strategy S would show up both in `strategies` _and_ in
`changeRequestStrategies`.
We have two options:
1. Filter the list of change request strategies, so that they don't
contain any duplicates (this is currently how it's implemented)
2. Ignore the duplicates and just send both lists as is.
We're doing option 2 for now.
Removing a user from a project was impossible if you only had 1 owner.
It worked fine when having more than an owner. This should fix it and
we'll add tests later
