This PR does **one** thing:
it changes the events for potentially stale to:
- Only being emitted when potentially stale gets turned on
- In doing so, it also simplifies the event that's getting emitted,
removing the `data` property.
- The event is also renamed to better match the existing
`feature-stale-on` and `...-off` events.
The addon listening was broken out into a separate PR (#4279)
## Old description
This change lets all addons listen for events when features get marked
or unmarked as potentially stale.
### Discussion
#### All addons?
Should this be available to all addons? I can't see a reason why it
shouldn't be available to all addons, but I might be missing
something.
**Update**: spoke to a couple people. Can see no reason why this isn't
okay.
#### Should it be behind a flag?
The feature is still behind a flag, but the event type is not. Should
we gate the event being available until we actually emit the event?
That would require some more code, but could yield less potential
confusion.
Open to hearing your thoughts.
This PR updates the feature type service by adding a new
`updateLifetime` method. This method handles the connection between the
API (#4256) and the store (#4252).
I've also added some new e2e tests to ensure that the API behaves as
expected.
<!-- 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! ❤️ -->
When reordering strategies for a feature environment:
- Adds stop when CR are enabled
- Emits an event
## 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>
This PR adds updates the potentially stale status change events whenever
the potentially stale update function is run.
No events are emitted yet. While the emission is only a few lines of
code, I'd like to do that in a separate PR so that we can give it the
attention it deserves in the form of tests, etc.
This PR also moves the potentially stale update functionality from the
`update` method to only being done in the
`updatePotentiallyStaleFeatures` method. This keeps all functionality
related to marking `potentiallyStale` in one place.
The emission implementation was removed in
4fb7cbde03
## The update queries
While it would be possible to do the state updates in a single query
instead of three separate ones, wrangling this into knex proved to be
troublesome (and would also probably be harder to understand and reason
about). The current solution uses three smaller queries (one select, two
updates), as Jaanus suggested in a private slack thread.
This PR lays most of the groundwork required for emitting events when
features are marked as potentially stale by Unleash. It does **not**
emit any events just yet. The summary is:
- periodically look for features that are potentially stale and mark
them (set to run every 10 seconds for now; can be changed)
- when features are updated, if the update data contains changes to the
feature's type or createdAt date, also update the potentially stale
status.
It is currently about 220 lines of tests and about 100 lines of
application code (primarily db migration and two new methods on the
IFeatureToggleStore interface).
The reason I wanted to put this into a single PR (instead of just the db
migration, then just the potentially stale marking, then the update
logic) is:
If users get the db migration first, but not the rest of the update
logic until the events are fired, then they could get a bunch of new
events for features that should have been marked as potentially stale
several days/weeks/months ago. That seemed undesirable to me, so I
decided to bunch those changes together. Of course, I'd be happy to
break it into smaller parts.
## Rules
A toggle will be marked as potentially stale iff:
- it is not already stale
- its createdAt date is older than its feature type's expected lifetime
would dictate
## Migration
The migration adds a new `potentially_stale` column to the features
table and sets this to true for any toggles that have exceeded their
expected lifetime and that have not already been marked as `stale`.
## Discussion
### The `currentTime` parameter of `markPotentiallyStaleFeatures`
The `markPotentiallyStaleFetaures` method takes an optional
`currentTime` parameter. This was added to make it easier to test (so
you can test "into the future"), but it's not used in the application.
We can rewrite the tests to instead update feature toggles manually, but
that wouldn't test the actual marking method. Happy to discuss.
This PR fixes an issue where events generated during a db transaction
would get published before the transaction was complete. This caused
errors in some of our services that expected the data to be stored
before the transaction had been commited. Refer to [linear issue
1-1049](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-1049/event-emitter-should-emit-events-after-db-transaction-is-commited-not)
for more info.
Fixes 1-1049.
## Changes
The most important change here is that the `eventStore` no longer emits
events when they happen (because that can be in the middle of a
transaction). Instead, events are stored with a new `announced` column.
The new event announcer service runs on a schedule (every second) and
publishes any new events that have not been published.
Parts of the code have largely been lifted from the
`client-application-store`, which uses a similar logic.
I have kept the emitting of the event within the event store because a
lot of other services listen to events from this store, so removing that
would require a large rewrite. It's something we could look into down
the line, but it seems like too much of a change to do right now.
## Discussion
### Terminology:
Published vs announced? We should settle on one or the other. Announced
is consistent with the client-application store, but published sounds
more fitting for events.
### Publishing and marking events as published
The current implementation fetches all events that haven't been marked
as announced, sets them as announced, and then emits them. It's possible
that Unleash would crash in the interim or something else might happen,
causing the events not to get published. Maybe it would make sense to
just fetch the events and only mark them as published after the
announcement? On the other hand, that might get us into other problems.
Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
### 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.
Catch cases where the segment doesn't exist and populate that error
message with more info: it now says that a segment
with <id> doesn't exist instead of just 'No row'.
This PR adds strategy titles as an optional bit of data added to client
features. It's only added when prompted.
## Discussion points:
### getPlaygroundFeatures
The optional `includeStrategyId` parameter has been replaced by a
`getPlaygroundFeatures` in the service (and in the underlying store).
The playground was the only place that used this specific include, so
instead of adding more and making the interface for that method more
complex, I created a new method that deals specifically with the
playground.
The underlying store still uses an `optionalIncludes` parameter,
however. I have a plan to make that interface more fluid, but I'd like
to propose that in a follow-up PR.
## About the changes
This makes these permissions not available for selection. In particular
`UPDATE_ROLE`, `CREATE_API_TOKEN`, `UPDATE_API_TOKEN`,
`DELETE_API_TOKEN`, `READ_API_TOKEN` are long-lived and should be taken
out with special care which is why we have
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1158/add-delete-migration-to-clean-up-no-longer-used-permissions
## Discussion points
If a role has this permission assigned, it will be displayed but will
not be able to remove it. Because the application code does not rely on
these permissions, this shouldn't be a problem. Later when we remove
them from the DB, the permission will be removed as well from the role
by the migration
## 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>
<!-- 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 feature usage info and custom strategy counters to the version
check object.
<!-- 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? -->
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:
## 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 migration that renames `token_name` back to `username`, then adds
a new optional column named `token_name`
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
I've added fallbacks for resolving username/tokenname on insert and on
making rows from results.
But this adds another column renaming, which is worth discussing
properly
<!-- 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! ❤️ -->
## 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 deprecates the `username` properties on api-token schemas, and adds
a `tokenName` property.
DB field `username` has been renamed to `token_name`, migration added
for the rename.
Both `username` and `tokenName` can be used when consuming the service,
but only one of them.
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
There's a couple of things I'd like to get opinions on and discuss:
- Frontend still uses the deprecated `username` property
- ApiTokenSchema is used both for input and output of `Create`
controller endpoints and should be split out into separate schemas. I'll
set up a task for this
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
Co-authored-by: mergify[bot] <37929162+mergify[bot]@users.noreply.github.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! ❤️ -->
set feature.enabled to false when all strategies are deactivated
## 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>
Co-authored-by: Prabodh Meshram <prabodh.meshram7@gmail.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! ❤️ -->
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>
When adding a strategy using a context field that did not exist, we
threw an unknown error.
This changes to throw NotFoundError so that our users can better know
what they did wrong.
<!-- 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 enabled field to feature strategies
Filter out disabled strategies when returning/evaluating
## 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 #
[1-865](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-865/allow-for-enablingdisabling-strategies-in-place-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>
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.
This PR updates the OpenAPI schemas for all the operations tagged with
"addons". In doing so, I also uncovered a few bugs and inconsistencies.
These have also been fixed.
## Changes
I've added inline comments to the changed files to call out anything
that I think is worth clarifying specifically. As an overall
description, this PR does the following:
Splits `addon-schema` into `addon-schema` and
`addon-create-update-schema`. The former is used when describing addons
that exist within Unleash and contain IDs and `created_at` timestamps.
The latter is used when creating or updating addons.
Adds examples and descriptions to all relevant schemas (and their
dependencies).
Updates addons operations descriptions and response codes (including the
recently introduced 413 and 415).
Fixes a bug where the server would crash if it didn't recognize the
addon provider (test added).
Fixes a bug where updating an addon wouldn't return anything, even if
the API said that it would. (test added)
Resolves some inconsistencies in handling of addon description. (tests
added)
### Addon descriptions
when creating addons, descriptions are optional. The original
`addonSchema` said they could be `null | string | undefined`. This
caused some inconsistencies in return values. Sometimes they were
returned, other times not. I've made it so that `descriptions` are now
always returned from the API. If it's not defined or if it's set to
`null`, the API will return `description: null`.
### `IAddonDto`
`IAddonDto`, the type we used internally to model the incoming addons
(for create and update) says that `description` is required. This hasn't
been true at least since we introduced OpenAPI schemas. As such, the
update and insert methods that the service uses were incompatible with
the **actual** data that we require.
I've changed the type to reflect reality for now. Assuming the tests
pass, this **should** all be good, but I'd like the reviewer(s) to give
this a think too.
---------
Co-authored-by: Christopher Kolstad <chriswk@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 title column to strategies, feature_strategies and features_view in
the db
Updates model/schemas
## 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 #
[1-855](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-855/allow-for-title-on-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>
<!-- 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! ❤️ -->
Backports stickiness 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 #
<!-- (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: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
Co-authored-by: GitHub Actions Bot <>
Co-authored-by: Mateusz Kwasniewski <kwasniewski.mateusz@gmail.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! ❤️ -->
Changes the schema and api to accept any string for defaultStickiness
## 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! ❤️ -->
## 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>
This PR changes how we calculate average time to production. Instead of
calculating fleeting 30 day windows and calculating the past and current
window, we now calculate a flat average across the entire project life.
This is less error prone as each feature will be tied to the earliest
time it was turned on in a production environment.
Assume `undefined` instead of `null` for project in terms of interfacing
with segments: If the `project` field is not present, that means that it
is not set, which means we're dealing with a "global" segment. If we
want to unset `project` and make a segment global, we simply don't send
the `project` property on our PUT method.
~~Should we handle this on the store layer instead~~? 🤔
Fixing this on the store layer. Effectively, frontend is able to send
`project: null` and even if that gets magically converted to `""` it's
OK since we're covering that use case on the store layer. Backend
response will be `project: null` as well, so it should be consistent.
## About the changes
While trying to count only features that are not archived to display the
amount of features of a project, accidentally we filtered out projects
with all features archived (they should show up in the list but with
count of features zero)
This PR takes the project status API a step further by adding the
capability of providing a date to control the selection. We are
currently making calculations based on a gliding 30 day window, updated
once a day. The initial database structure and method for updating the
UI is outlined in this PR.
## About the changes
This PR adds two new functions that is protected by CR. When used
instead of the current setVariantOnEnv and setVariantsOnEnv if the flag
UNLEASH_EXPERIMENTAL_CR_ON_VARIANTS is set, the call is blocked. This
leaves the old functions, which is used from the CR flow in place, and
adds new methods protected by CR.
Also adds e2e tests verifying that the methods will block requests if CR
is enabled for project:environment pair, as well as not block if CR is
not enabled. Tests already in place should confirm that the default
flow, without the flag enabled just works.
## About the changes
Add warnings when we detect something might be wrong with the customer
configuration, in particular with regard to variants configuration
## Rationale
Moving from variants per feature to variants per environment will allow
users to have fine-grained permissions and more control over variants on
different environments: #2254
But because this requires an additional step of copying variants to
other environments, we identified the potential risk of users forgetting
to follow this step. To keep them informed about this, we're introducing
a warning sign after a toggle is enabled when we detect that:
1. The environment is enabled without variants
2. Other enabled environments have variants
This situation would be a problem if you rely on `getVariant` method
from the SDK, because without variants you'll receive the default
variant. Probably, not what you'd expect after enabling the toggle, but
there are situations where this might be correct. Because of the latter,
we thought that adding a warning and letting the user handle the
situation was the best solution.
## UI sketches
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
## About the changes
This PR adds the ability to push variants to multiple environments
overriding the existing variants.
Relates to [roadmap](https://github.com/orgs/Unleash/projects/10) item:
#2254
**Note:** This won't fail if there are variants in other environments, because the operation wouldn't be idempotent. It should have that property because setting variants to 1 or more environments once or twice should not make a difference
