For easy gitar integration, we need to have boolean in the event
payload.
We might rethink it when we add variants, but currently enabled with
variants is not used.
Changes the event search handling, so that searching by user uses the
user's ID, not the "createdBy" name in the event. This aligns better
with what the OpenAPI schema describes it.
Adds an endpoint to return all event creators.
An interesting point is that it does not return the user object, but
just created_by as a string. This is because we do not store user IDs
for events, as they are not strictly bound to a user object, but rather
a historical user with the name X.
Previously people were able to send random data to feature type. Now it
is validated.
Fixes https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/issues/7751
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
Changed the url of event search to search/events to align with
search/features. With that created a search controller to keep all
searches under there.
Added first test.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PR #7519 introduced the pattern of using `createApiTokenService` instead
of newing it up. This usage was introduced in a concurrent PR (#7503),
so we're just cleaning up and making the usage consistent.
Deletes API tokens bound to specific projects when the last project they're mapped to is deleted.
---------
Co-authored-by: Tymoteusz Czech <2625371+Tymek@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
If you have SDK tokens scoped to projects that are deleted, you should
not get access to any flags with those.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Leek <david@getunleash.io>
This PR adds a feature flag limit to Unleash. It's set up to be
overridden in Enterprise, where we turn the limit up.
I've also fixed a couple bugs in the fake feature flag store.
This adds an extended metrics format to the metrics ingested by Unleash
and sent by running SDKs in the wild. Notably, we don't store this
information anywhere new in this PR, this is just streamed out to
Victoria metrics - the point of this project is insight, not analysis.
Two things to look out for in this PR:
- I've chosen to take extend the registration event and also send that
when we receive metrics. This means that the new data is received on
startup and on heartbeat. This takes us in the direction of collapsing
these two calls into one at a later point
- I've wrapped the existing metrics events in some "type safety", it
ain't much because we have 0 type safety on the event emitter so this
also has some if checks that look funny in TS that actually check if the
data shape is correct. Existing tests that check this are more or less
preserved
This fixes the issue where project names that are 100 characters long
or longer would cause the project creation to fail. This is because
the resulting ID would be longer than the 100 character limit imposed
by the back end.
We solve this by capping the project ID to 90 characters, which leaves
us with 10 characters for the suffix, meaning you can have 1 billion
projects (999,999,999 + 1) that start with the same 90
characters (after slugification) before anything breaks.
It's a little shorter than what it strictly has to be (we could
probably get around with 95 characters), but at this point, you're
reaching into edge case territory anyway, and I'd rather have a little
too much wiggle room here.
This PR removes the last two flags related to the project managament
improvements project, making the new project creation form GA.
In doing so, we can also delete the old project creation form (or at
least the page, the form is still in use in the project settings).
This PR:
- adds a flag to anonymize user emails in the new project cards
- performs the anonymization using the existing `anonymise` function
that we have.
It does not anonymize the system user, nor does it anonymize groups. It
does, however, leave the gravatar url unchanged, as that is already
hashed (but we may want to hide that too).
This PR also does not affect the user's name or username. Considering
the target is the demo instance where the vast majority of users don't
have this (and if they do, they've chosen to set it themselves), this
seems an appropriate mitigation.
With the flag turned off:
With the flag on:
Fix project role assignment for users with `ADMIN` permission, even if
they don't have the Admin root role. This happens when e.g. users
inherit the `ADMIN` permission from a group root role, but are not
Admins themselves.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
This PR adds metrics tracking for:
- "maxConstraintValues": the highest number of constraint values that
are in use
- "maxConstraintsPerStrategy": the highest number of constraints used on
a strategy
It updates the existing feature strategy read model that returns max
metrics for other strategy-related things.
It also moves one test into a more fitting describe block.
Instead of running exists on every row, we are joining the exists, which
runs the query only once.
This decreased load time on my huge dataset from 2000ms to 200ms.
Also added tests that values still come through as expected.
Instead of running exists on every row, we are joining the exists, which
runs the query only once.
This decreased load time on my huge dataset from 2000ms to 200ms.
Also added tests that values still come through as expected.
**Upgrade to React v18 for Unleash v6. Here's why I think it's a good
time to do it:**
- Command Bar project: We've begun work on the command bar project, and
there's a fantastic library we want to use. However, it requires React
v18 support.
- Straightforward Upgrade: I took a look at the upgrade guide
https://react.dev/blog/2022/03/08/react-18-upgrade-guide and it seems
fairly straightforward. In fact, I was able to get React v18 running
with minimal changes in just 10 minutes!
- Dropping IE Support: React v18 no longer supports Internet Explorer
(IE), which is no longer supported by Microsoft as of June 15, 2022.
Upgrading to v18 in v6 would be a good way to align with this change.
TS updates:
* FC children has to be explicit:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71788254/react-18-typescript-children-fc
* forcing version 18 types in resolutions:
https://sentry.io/answers/type-is-not-assignable-to-type-reactnode/
Test updates:
* fixing SWR issue that we have always had but it manifests more in new
React (https://github.com/vercel/swr/issues/2373)
---------
Co-authored-by: kwasniew <kwasniewski.mateusz@gmail.com>
This PR removes the flag for the new project card design, making it GA.
It also removes deprecated components and updates one reference (in the
groups card) to the new components instead.
## About the changes
Removes the deprecated state endpoint, state-service (despite the
service itself not having been marked as deprecated), and the file
import in server-impl. Leaves a TODO in place of where file import was
as traces for a replacement file import based on the new import/export
functionality
