This change adds a property to the segmentStrategiesSchema to make sure
that change request strategies are listed in the openapi spec
It also renames the files that contains that schema and its tests from
`admin-strategies-schema` to `segment-strategies-schema`.
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.
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.
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.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1403/consider-refactoring-the-way-tags-are-fetched-for-the-events
This adds 2 methods to `EventService`:
- `storeEvent`;
- `storeEvents`;
This allows us to run event-specific logic inside these methods. In the
case of this PR, this means fetching the feature tags in case the event
contains a `featureName` and there are no tags specified in the event.
This prevents us from having to remember to fetch the tags in order to
store feature-related events except for very specific cases, like the
deletion of a feature - You can't fetch tags for a feature that no
longer exists, so in that case we need to pre-fetch the tags before
deleting the feature.
This also allows us to do any event-specific post-processing to the
event before reaching the DB layer.
In general I think it's also nicer that we reference the event service
instead of the event store directly.
There's a lot of changes and a lot of files touched, but most of it is
boilerplate to inject the `eventService` where needed instead of using
the `eventStore` directly.
Hopefully this will be a better approach than
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/4729
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
We love all open-source Unleash users. in 2022 we built the [segment
capability](https://docs.getunleash.io/reference/segments) (v4.13) as an
enterprise feature, simplify life for our customers.
Now it is time to contribute it to the world 🌏
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
