## About the changes
Fix OpenAPI definitions for endpoint
`/api/admin/projects/{projectId}/features/{featureName}/environments/{environment}`
and similar.
### What
This PR adds documentation for our endpoints that are covered by our
"Events" tag. It also adds a type for all valid events, and then uses
this as valid values for type argument.
This PR updates endpoints and schemas for the API tokens tag.
As part of that, they also handle oneOf openapi validation errors and improve the console output for the enforcer tests.
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
## About the changes
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
This removes the experimental feature flag that defaulted to turn off
telemetry collection
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
## About the changes
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
Adds a UI that shows current status of version and feature usage
collection configuration, and a presence in the configuration menu +
menu bar.
Configuring these features is done by setting environment variables. The
version info collection is an existing feature that we're making more
visible, the feature usage collection feature is a new feature that has
it's own environment configuration but also depends on version info
collection being active to work.
When version collection is turned off and the experimental feature flag
for feature usage collection is turned off:
<img width="1269" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/707867/435a07da-d238-4b5b-a150-07e3bd6b816f">
When version collection is turned on and the experimental feature flag
is off:
<img width="1249" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/707867/8d1a76c5-99c9-4551-9a4f-86d477bbbf6f">
When the experimental feature flag is enabled, and version+telemetry is
turned off:
<img width="1239" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/707867/e0bc532b-be94-4076-bee1-faef9bc48a5b">
When version collection is turned on, the experimental feature flag is
enabled, and telemetry collection is turned off:
<img width="1234" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/707867/1bd190c1-08fe-4402-bde3-56f863a33289">
When version collection is turned on, the experimental feature flag is
enabled, and telemetry collection is turned on:
<img width="1229" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/707867/848912cd-30bd-43cf-9b81-c58a4cbad1e4">
When version collection is turned off, the experimental feature flag is
enabled, and telemetry collection is turned on:
<img width="1241" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/707867/d2b981f2-033f-4fae-a115-f93e0653729b">
---------
Co-authored-by: sighphyre <liquidwicked64@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
### What
Added documentation for context fields and endpoints tagged with the
"Context" tag.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
## About the changes
This PR enables or disables create API token button based on the
permissions.
**Note:** the button is only displayed if you have READ permissions on
some API token. This is a minor limitation as having CREATE permissions
should also grant READ permissions, but right now this is up to the user
to set up the custom role with the correct permissions
**Note 2:** Project-specific API tokens are also ruled by the
project-specific permission to create API tokens in a project (just
having the root permissions to create a client token or frontend token
does not grant access to create a project-specific API token). The
permissions to access the creation of a project-specific API token then
rely on the root permissions to allow the user to create either a client
token or a frontend token.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Leek <david@getunleash.io>
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/4019 introduced a bug where API
token filtering was not taking into account ADMIN permissions, which
means the API tokens were not being displayed on the UI.
## What
As part of the move to enable custom-root-roles, our permissions model
was found to not be granular enough to allow service accounts to only be
allowed to create read-only tokens (client, frontend), but not be
allowed to create admin tokens to avoid opening up a path for privilege
escalation.
## How
This PR adds 12 new roles, a CRUD set for each of the three token types
(admin, client, frontend). To access the `/api/admin/api-tokens`
endpoints you will still need the existing permission (CREATE_API_TOKEN,
DELETE_API_TOKEN, READ_API_TOKEN, UPDATE_API_TOKEN). Once this PR has
been merged the token type you're modifying will also be checked, so if
you're trying to create a CLIENT api-token, you will need
`CREATE_API_TOKEN` and `CREATE_CLIENT_API_TOKEN` permissions. If the
user performing the create call does not have these two permissions or
the `ADMIN` permission, the creation will be rejected with a `403 -
FORBIDDEN` status.
### Discussion points
The test suite tests all operations using a token with
operation_CLIENT_API_TOKEN permission and verifies that it fails trying
to do any of the operations against FRONTEND and ADMIN tokens. During
development the operation_FRONTEND_API_TOKEN and
operation_ADMIN_API_TOKEN permission has also been tested in the same
way. I wonder if it's worth it to re-add these tests in order to verify
that the permission checker works for all operations, or if this is
enough. Since we're running them using e2e tests, I've removed them for
now, to avoid hogging too much processing time.
## About the changes
Implements custom root roles, encompassing a lot of different areas of
the project, and slightly refactoring the current roles logic. It
includes quite a clean up.
This feature itself is behind a flag: `customRootRoles`
This feature covers root roles in:
- Users;
- Service Accounts;
- Groups;
Apologies in advance. I may have gotten a bit carried away 🙈
### Roles
We now have a new admin tab called "Roles" where we can see all root
roles and manage custom ones. We are not allowed to edit or remove
*predefined* roles.
This meant slightly pushing away the existing roles to `project-roles`
instead. One idea we want to explore in the future is to unify both
types of roles in the UI instead of having 2 separate tabs. This
includes modernizing project roles to fit more into our current design
and decisions.
Hovering the permissions cell expands detailed information about the
role:
### Create and edit role
Here's how the role form looks like (create / edit):
Here I categorized permissions so it's easier to visualize and manage
from a UX perspective.
I'm using the same endpoint as before. I tried to unify the logic and
get rid of the `projectRole` specific hooks. What distinguishes custom
root roles from custom project roles is the extra `root-custom` type we
see on the payload. By default we assume `custom` (custom project role)
instead, which should help in terms of backwards compatibility.
### Delete role
When we delete a custom role we try to help the end user make an
informed decision by listing all the entities which currently use this
custom root role:
~~As mentioned in the screenshot, when deleting a custom role, we demote
all entities associated with it to the predefined `Viewer` role.~~
**EDIT**: Apparently we currently block this from the API
(access-service deleteRole) with a message:
What should the correct behavior be?
### Role selector
I added a new easy-to-use role selector component that is present in:
- Users
- Service Accounts
- Groups
### Role description
I also added a new role description component that you can see below the
dropdown in the selector component, but it's also used to better
describe each role in the respective tables:
I'm not listing all the permissions of predefined roles. Those simply
show the description in the tooltip:
### Role badge
Groups is a bit different, since it uses a list of cards, so I added yet
another component - Role badge:
I'm using this same component on the profile tab:
## Discussion points
- Are we being defensive enough with the use of the flag? Should we
cover more?
- Are we breaking backwards compatibility in any way?
- What should we do when removing a role? Block or demote?
- Maybe some existing permission-related issues will surface with this
change: Are we being specific enough with our permissions? A lot of
places are simply checking for `ADMIN`;
- We may want to get rid of the API roles coupling we have with the
users and SAs and instead use the new hooks (e.g. `useRoles`)
explicitly;
- We should update the docs;
- Maybe we could allow the user to add a custom role directly from the
role selector component;
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
## About the changes
Edit application under
https://app.unleash-hosted.com/demo/applications/test-app is currently
not working as the appName is expected to come in the request body, but
it's actually part of the url. We have two options here:
1. We change the UI to adapt to the expectations of the request by
adding appName to the request body (and eventually removing appName from
the URL, which would be a breaking change)
2. We remove the restriction of only sending the appName in the body and
take the one that comes in the URL. We have a validation that verifies
that at least one of the two sets the appName
([here](e376088668/src/lib/services/client-metrics/instance-service.ts (L208))
we validate using [this
schema](e376088668/src/lib/services/client-metrics/schema.ts (L55-L70)))
In terms of REST API, we can assume that the appName will be present in
the resource `/api/admin/metrics/applications` (an endpoint we don't
have), but when we're updating an application we should refer to that
application by its URL: `/api/admin/metrics/applications/<appName>` and
the presence of an appName in the body might indicate that we're trying
to change the name of the application (something we currently not
support)
Based on the above, I believe going with the second option is best, as
it adheres to REST principles and does not require a breaking change.
Despite that, we only support updating applications as the creation is
done from metrics ingestion
Fixes: #3580
This PR improves our handling of internal Joi errors, to make them more
sensible to the end user. It does that by providing a better description
of the errors and by telling the user what they value they provided was.
Previous conversion:
```json
{
"id": "705a8dc0-1198-4894-9015-f1e5b9992b48",
"name": "BadDataError",
"message": "\"value\" must contain at least 1 items",
"details": [
{
"message": "\"value\" must contain at least 1 items",
"description": "\"value\" must contain at least 1 items"
}
]
}
```
New conversion:
```json
{
"id": "87fb4715-cbdd-48bb-b4d7-d354e7d97380",
"name": "BadDataError",
"message": "Request validation failed: your request body contains invalid data. Refer to the `details` list for more information.",
"details": [
{
"description": "\"value\" must contain at least 1 items. You provided [].",
"message": "\"value\" must contain at least 1 items. You provided []."
}
]
}
```
## Restructuring
This PR moves some code out of `unleash-error.ts` and into a new file.
The purpose of this is twofold:
1. avoid circular dependencies (we need imports from both UnleashError
and BadDataError)
2. carve out a clearer separation of concerns, keeping `unleash-error` a
little more focused.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1071/prevent-users-from-disabling-password-authentication-when-there-are-no
Improves the behavior of disabling password based login by adding some
relevant information and a confirmation dialog with a warning. This felt
better than trying to disable the toggle, by still allowing the end
users to make the decision, except now it should be a properly informed
decision with confirmation.
- **Password based administrators**: Admin accounts that have a password
set;
- **Other administrators**: Other admin users that do not have a
password. May be SSO, but may also be users that did not set a password
yet;
- **Admin service accounts**: Service accounts that have the admin root
role. Depending on how you're using the SA this may not necessarily mean
locking yourself out of an admin account, especially if you secured its
token beforehand;
- **Admin API tokens**: Similar to the above. If you secured an admin
API token beforehand, you still have access to all features through the
API;
Each one of them link to the respective page inside Unleash (e.g. users
page, service accounts page, tokens page...);
If you try to disable and press "save", and only in that scenario, you
are presented with the following confirmation dialog:
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
## About the changes
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
Improves the openapi schema specifications for the schemas belonging to
the "Projects" tag.
Expected error codes/http statues, descriptions, and example data
---------
Co-authored-by: Christopher Kolstad <chriswk@getunleash.ai>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
### What
In the demo when listing possible users to grant access to your project,
we inadvertently expose emails when listing users you can grant access
to. This PR anonymises the access list on the way out.
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
## About the changes
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
OpenAPI schema updates for Personal Access Tokens, http statuses,
property types and examples, return types
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
Co-authored-by: mergify[bot] <37929162+mergify[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
## About the changes
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
<!-- Does it close an issue? Multiple? -->
Closes #
<!-- (For internal contributors): Does it relate to an issue on public
roadmap? -->
<!--
Relates to [roadmap](https://github.com/orgs/Unleash/projects/10) item:
#
-->
### Important files
<!-- PRs can contain a lot of changes, but not all changes are equally
important. Where should a reviewer start looking to get an overview of
the changes? Are any files particularly important? -->
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
- Creates a dialog when the feature has ONLY disabled strategies and the
environment in turned on
- Adds functionality to either `enable` the strategies or add the
default one (if a project specific default strategy is set, uses it)
## About the changes
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
<!-- Does it close an issue? Multiple? -->
Uploading Screen Recording 2023-05-05 at 17.40.48.mov…
Closes #
<!-- (For internal contributors): Does it relate to an issue on public
roadmap? -->
<!--
Relates to [roadmap](https://github.com/orgs/Unleash/projects/10) item:
#
-->
### Important files
<!-- PRs can contain a lot of changes, but not all changes are equally
important. Where should a reviewer start looking to get an overview of
the changes? Are any files particularly important? -->
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
- Removed `strategyTitle` and `strategyDisable` flags. Unified under
`strategyImprovements` flag
- Implements the default strategy UI
- Bug fixes
## About the changes
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
<!-- Does it close an issue? Multiple? -->
Closes #
[1-875](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-875/default-strategy-frontend)
<!-- (For internal contributors): Does it relate to an issue on public
roadmap? -->
<!--
Relates to [roadmap](https://github.com/orgs/Unleash/projects/10) item:
#
-->
### Important files
<!-- PRs can contain a lot of changes, but not all changes are equally
important. Where should a reviewer start looking to get an overview of
the changes? Are any files particularly important? -->
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
Adds default strategy to project environment link table
## About the changes
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
<!-- Does it close an issue? Multiple? -->
Closes #
[1-876](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-876/default-strategy-backend)
<!-- (For internal contributors): Does it relate to an issue on public
roadmap? -->
<!--
Relates to [roadmap](https://github.com/orgs/Unleash/projects/10) item:
#
-->
### Important files
<!-- PRs can contain a lot of changes, but not all changes are equally
important. Where should a reviewer start looking to get an overview of
the changes? Are any files particularly important? -->
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
I've copied most of the descriptions from what we did for batch metrics
under the Edge tag, however there are a couple of top level descriptions
that are "fine" but I'm definitely open to suggestions.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
### What
We've had this marked as deprecated through our v4, this PR removes it.
### Worth noting
This updates the deprecation notices with removal notices in the
documentation as well.
### Considerations
The tags API is still located under
/api/admin/features/{featureName}/tags. It should be moved to
/api/admin/projects/{project}/features/{featureName}/tags. I vote we do
that in a separate PR, we'd probably also need to deprecate the existing
tags endpoints for v5 and remove in v6. We could use 308s to signify
that they are moved.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
This PR implements the first version of a suggested unification (and
documentation) of the errors that we return from the API today.
The goal is for this to be the first step towards the error type defined
in this internal [linear
task](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-629/define-the-error-type
'Define the new API error type').
## The state of things today
As things stand, we currently have no (or **very** little) documentation
of the errors that are returned from the API. We mention error codes,
but never what the errors may contain.
Second, there is no specified format for errors, so what they return is
arbitrary, and based on ... Who knows? As a result, we have multiple
different errors returned by the API depending on what operation you're
trying to do. What's more, with OpenAPI validation in the mix, it's
absolutely possible for you to get two completely different error
objects for operations to the same endpoint.
Third, the errors we do return are usually pretty vague and don't really
provide any real help to the user. "You don't have the right
permissions". Great. Well what permissions do I need? And how would I
know? "BadDataError". Sick. Why is it bad?
... You get it.
## What we want to achieve
The ultimate goal is for error messages to serve both humans and
machines. When the user provides bad data, we should tell them what
parts of the data are bad and what they can do to fix it. When they
don't have the right permissions, we should tell them what permissions
they need.
Additionally, it would be nice if we could provide an ID for each error
instance, so that you (or an admin) can look through the logs and locate
he incident.
## What's included in **this** PR?
This PR does not aim to implement everything above. It's not intended to
magically fix everything. Its goal is to implement the necessary
**breaking** changes, so that they can be included in v5. Changing error
messages is a slightly grayer area than changing APIs directly, but
changing the format is definitely something I'd consider breaking.
So this PR:
- defines a minimal version of the error type defined in the [API error
definition linear
task](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-629/define-the-error-type).
- aims to catch all errors we return today and wrap them in the error
type
- updates tests to match the new expectations.
An important point: because we are cutting v5 very soon and because work
for this wasn't started until last week, the code here isn't necessarily
very polished. But it doesn't need to be. The internals can be as messy
as we want, as long as the API surface is stable.
That said, I'm very open to feedback about design and code completeness,
etc, but this has intentionally been done quickly.
Please also see my inline comments on the changes for more specific
details.
### Proposed follow-ups
As mentioned, this is the first step to implementing the error type. The
public API error type only exposes `id`, `name`, and `message`. This is
barely any more than most of the previous messages, but they are now all
using the same format. Any additional properties, such as `suggestion`,
`help`, `documentationLink` etc can be added as features without
breaking the current format. This is an intentional limitation of this
PR.
Regarding additional properties: there are some error responses that
must contain extra properties. Some of these are documented in the types
of the new error constructor, but not all. This includes `path` and
`type` properties on 401 errors, `details` on validation errors, and
more.
Also, because it was put together quickly, I don't yet know exactly how
we (as developers) would **prefer** to use these new error messages
within the code, so the internal API (the new type, name, etc), is just
a suggestion. This can evolve naturally over time if (based on feedback
and experience) without changing the public API.
## Returning multiple errors
Most of the time when we return errors today, we only return a single
error (even if many things are wrong). AJV, the OpenAPI integration we
use does have a setting that allows it to return all errors in a request
instead of a single one. I suggest we turn that on, but that we do it in
a separate PR (because it updates a number of other snapshots).
When returning errors that point to `details`, the objects in the
`details` now contain a new `description` property. This "deprecates"
the `message` property. Due to our general deprecation policy, this
should be kept around for another full major and can be removed in v6.
```json
{
"name": "BadDataError",
"message": "Something went wrong. Check the `details` property for more information."
"details": [{
"message": "The .params property must be an object. You provided an array.",
"description": "The .params property must be an object. You provided an array.",
}]
}
```
<!-- Thanks for creating a PR! To make it easier for reviewers and
everyone else to understand what your changes relate to, please add some
relevant content to the headings below. Feel free to ignore or delete
sections that you don't think are relevant. Thank you! ❤️ -->
## About the changes
<!-- Describe the changes introduced. What are they and why are they
being introduced? Feel free to also add screenshots or steps to view the
changes if they're visual. -->
<!-- Does it close an issue? Multiple? -->
Closes #
[1-863](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-836/update-endpoints-for-tag-public-signup-tokens)
<!-- (For internal contributors): Does it relate to an issue on public
roadmap? -->
<!--
Relates to [roadmap](https://github.com/orgs/Unleash/projects/10) item:
#
-->
### Important files
<!-- PRs can contain a lot of changes, but not all changes are equally
important. Where should a reviewer start looking to get an overview of
the changes? Are any files particularly important? -->
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
feat: adds a way to specify a root role on a group, which will cause any user entering into that group to take on the permissions of that root role
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
From the discussion here
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/3496#discussion_r1163745860
This PR checks the existence of the feature before trying to get tags
for the feature. Doing so by stealing the exists method from the feature
store, since that's what we need to know exists, and avoiding having the
feature store as a dependency to the featureTagStore seemed reasonable.
