## About the changes
This feature allows our Enterprise customers to configure banners to be
displayed on their Unleash instance for all their users to see and
interact with. Previously known as "internal message banners".
Optimizations:
1. Removed extra round trip to database to count environments
2. Removed extra round trip to database to count features
Fixes:
Currently, we were using a very optimistic query to set correct limit
and offset. This breaks as soon we we join tags.
` query = query
.select(selectColumns)
.limit(limit * environmentCount)
.offset(offset * environmentCount);`
The solution was to use common table expressions, so we could count and
rank features.
## About the changes
While working on Terraform I identified some issues with how our backend
handled some requests. This happened because the Terraform client was
unaware of new fields and was not sending them. This resulted in bad
behavior as some of those missing fields were treated in the backend as
`null` and removed existing data from the DB.
This ADR aims to shed some light on the problem and specifies how our
server should handle these requests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
<!-- 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? -->
Rename event to SCHEDULED_CHANGE_REQUEST_EXECUTED
This event will be triggered when the executor runs a scheduled change
request.
The ChangeRequestApplied event will remain as is (going out to project
members - but will have a scheduled = true property in the data if it
scheduled.
This new event will fire on execution of the schedule and have a result
= "failed" | "succeeded" property.
Because notifications are tied to events, this notification will go out
to the creator and the applier
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
This PR updates the segment usage counting to also include segment usage
in pending change requests.
The changes include:
- Updating the schema to explicitly call out that change request usage
is included.
- Adding two tests to verify the new features
- Writing an alternate query to count this data
Specifically, it'll update the part of the UI that tells you how many
places a segment is used:
## Implementation
Implementing this was a little tricky. Previously, we'd just count
distinct instances of feature names and project names on the
feature_strategy table. However, to merge this with change request data,
we can't just count existing usage and change request usage separately,
because that could cause duplicates.
Instead of turning this into a complex DB query, I've broken it up into
a few separate queries and done the merging in JS. I think that's more
readable and it was easier to reason about.
Here's the breakdown:
1. Get the list of pending change requests. We need their IDs and their
project.
2. Get the list of updateStrategy and addStrategy events that have
segment data.
3. Take the result from step 2 and turn it into a dictionary of segment
id to usage data.
4. Query the feature_strategy_segment and feature_strategies table, to
get existing segment usage data
5. Fold that data into the change request data.
6. Perform the preexisting segment query (without counting logic) to get
other segment data
7. Enrich the results of the query from step 2 with usage data.
## Discussion points
I feel like this could be done in a nicer way, so any ideas on how to
achieve that (whether that's as a db query or just breaking up the code
differently) is very welcome.
Second, using multiple queries obviously yields more overhead than just
a single one. However, I do not think this is in the hot path, so I
don't consider performance to be critical here, but I'm open to hearing
opposing thoughts on this of course.
This PR fixes a couple of issues with the pagination bar:
* Fixes an issue where padding bottom would be broken due to disabling
padding on the parent container
* Remove padding on the entire table to create more space and remove
header bar border radius as per discussion with @nicolaesocaciu
This PR makes changes to how the project overview skeleton screen works.
Important changes:
- Add skeleton screens to missing elements, creating a more
comprehensive loading screen
- Split the page into different loading sections, so that we can load
the table when we fetch the next page without affecting the rest of the
page.
https://www.loom.com/share/e5d30dc897ac488ea80cfae11ffab646
Next steps:
* Hide bar if total is less than 25
* Add FE testing
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/SR-169/ticket-1107-project-feature-flag-limit-is-not-correctly-updatedFixes#5315, an issue where it would not be possible to set an empty
flag limit.
This also fixes the UI behavior: Before, when the flag limit field was
emptied, it would disappear from the UI.
I'm a bit unsure of the original intent of the `(data.defaultStickiness
!== undefined || data.featureLimit !== undefined)` condition. We're in
an update method, triggered by a PUT endpoint - I think it's safe to
assume that we'll always want to set these values to whatever they come
as, we just need to convert them to `null` in case they are not present
(i.e. `undefined`).
This fixes an edge case not caught originally in
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/5304 - When creating a new
segment on the global level:
- There is no `projectId`, either in the params or body
- The `UPDATE_PROJECT_SEGMENT` is still a part of the permissions
checked on the endpoint
- There is no `id` on the params
This made it so that we would run `segmentStore.get(id)` with an
undefined `id`, causing issues.
The fix was simply checking for the presence of `params.id` before
proceeding.
This PR hooks up the changes introduced in #5301 to the API and puts
them behind a feature flag. A new test has been added and the test setup
has been slightly tweaked to allow this test.
When the flag is enabled, the API will now not let you delete a segment
that's used in any active CRs.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/SR-164/ticket-1106-user-with-createedit-project-segment-is-not-able-to-edit-a
Fixes a bug where the `UPDATE_PROJECT_SEGMENT` permission is not
respected, both on the UI and on the API. The original intention was
stated
[here](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/3346#discussion_r1140434517).
This was easy to fix on the UI, since we were simply missing the extra
permission on the button permission checks.
Unfortunately the API can be tricky. Our auth middleware tries to grab
the `project` information from either the params or body object, but our
`DELETE` method does not contain this information. There is no body and
the endpoint looks like `/admin/segments/:id`, only including the
segment id.
This means that, in the rbac middleware when we check the permissions,
we need to figure out if we're in such a scenario and fetch the project
information from the DB, which feels a bit hacky, but it's something
we're seemingly already doing for features, so at least it's somewhat
consistent.
Ideally what we could do is leave this API alone and create a separate
one for project segments, with endpoints where we would have project as
a param, like so:
`http://localhost:4242/api/admin/projects/:projectId/segments/1`.
This PR opts to go with the quick and hacky solution for now since this
is an issue we want to fix quickly, but this is something that we should
be aware of. I'm also unsure if we want to create a new API for project
segments. If we decide that we want a different solution I don't mind
either adapting this PR or creating a follow up.
This test was flaky because it relied on the order of the array
returned. To make it less flaky, we now turn the array into an object
instead and compare that.
This PR adds a way to tell if a specific segment is being used in any
active change requests. It's the first step towards preventing segments
that are being used in change requests from being deleted.
It does that by checking the db for any unclosed CRs and using those CR
ids to look for "addStrategy" and "updateStrategy" events in the cr
events table.
## Upcoming PRs
This only puts in a way to detect it, but doesn't add that to anything.
That'll be in an upcoming iteration.
