Vitest Pros:
* Automated failing test comments on github PRs
* A nice local UI with incremental testing when changing files (`yarn
test:ui`)
* Also nicely supported in all major IDEs, click to run test works (so
we won't miss what we had with jest).
* Works well with ESM
Vitest Cons:
* The ESBuild transformer vitest uses takes a little longer to transform
than our current SWC/jest setup, however, it is possible to setup SWC as
the transformer for vitest as well (though it only does one transform,
so we're paying ~7-10 seconds instead of ~ 2-3 seconds in transform
phase).
* Exposes how slow our tests are (tongue in cheek here)
We're migrating to ESM, which will allow us to import the latest
versions of our dependencies.
Co-Authored-By: Christopher Kolstad <chriswk@getunleash.io>
Add `getProjectLinkTemplates` method to ProjectStore and corresponding
test. Ideally this should be in a read-model, but let's finish link
templates end to end
Adds support for link templates in projects, allowing reusable URL
patterns with placeholders. Includes validation, database changes,
updated API schemas, and tests.
As part of preparation for ESM and node/TSC updates, this PR will make
Unleash build with strictNullChecks set to true, since that's what's in
our tsconfig file. Hence, this PR also removes the `--strictNullChecks
false` flag in our compile tasks in package.json.
TL;DR - Clean up your code rather than turning off compiler security
features :)
## About the changes
Based on the first hypothesis from
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/9264, I decided to find an
alternative way of initializing the DB, mainly trying to run migrations
only once and removing that from the actual test run.
I found in [Postgres template
databases](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/manage-ag-templatedbs.html)
an interesting option in combination with jest global initializer.
### Changes on how we use DBs for testing
Previously, we were relying on a single DB with multiple schemas to
isolate tests, but each schema was empty and required migrations or
custom DB initialization scripts.
With this method, we don't need to use different schema names
(apparently there's no templating for schemas), and we can use new
databases. We can also eliminate custom initialization code.
### Legacy tests
This method also highlighted some wrong assumptions in existing tests.
One example is the existence of `default` environment, that because of
being deprecated is no longer available, but because tests are creating
the expected db state manually, they were not updated to match the
existing db state.
To keep tests running green, I've added a configuration to use the
`legacy` test setup (24 tests). By migrating these, we'll speed up
tests, but the code of these tests has to be modified, so I leave this
for another PR.
## Downsides
1. The template db initialization happens at the beginning of any test,
so local development may suffer from slower unit tests. As a workaround
we could define an environment variable to disable the db migration
2. Proliferation of test dbs. In ephemeral environments, this is not a
problem, but for local development we should clean up from time to time.
There's the possibility of cleaning up test dbs using the db name as a
pattern:
2ed2e1c274/scripts/jest-setup.ts (L13-L18)
but I didn't want to add this code yet. Opinions?
## Benefits
1. It allows us migrate only once and still get the benefits of having a
well known state for tests.
3. It removes some of the custom setup for tests (which in some cases
ends up testing something not realistic)
4. It removes the need of testing migrations:
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/blob/main/src/test/e2e/migrator.e2e.test.ts
as migrations are run at the start
5. Forces us to keep old tests up to date when we modify our database
Trying again, now with a tested function for resolvingIsOss.
Still want to test this on a pro instance in sandbox before we deploy
this to our customers to avoid what happened Friday.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
From 13 seconds to 0.1 seconds.
1. Joining 1 million events to projects/features is slow. **Solved by
using CTE.**
2. Running grouping on 1 million rows is slow. **Solved by adding
index.**
Remove everything related to the connected environment count for project
status. We decided that because we don't have anywhere to link it to at
the moment, we don't want to show it yet.
Do not count stale flags as potentially stale flags to remove
duplicates.
Stale flags feel like more superior state and it should not show up
under potentially stale.
This PR adds connected environments to the project status payload.
It's done by:
- adding a new `getConnectedEnvironmentCountForProject` method to the
project store (I opted for this approach instead of creating a new view
model because it already has a `getEnvironmentsForProject` method)
- adding the project store to the project status service
- updating the schema
For the schema, I opted for adding a `resources` property, under which I
put `connectedEnvironments`. My thinking was that if we want to add the
rest of the project resources (that go in the resources widget), it'd
make sense to group those together inside an object. However, I'd also
be happy to place the property on the top level. If you have opinions
one way or the other, let me know.
As for the count, we're currently only counting environments that have
metrics and that are active for the current project.
Adding project status schema definition, controller, service, e2e test.
Next PR will add functionality for activity object.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
This PR fixes a bug where the default project would have no listed
owners. The issue was that the default project has no user owners by
default, so we didn't get a result back when looking for user owners.
Now we check whether we have any owners for that project, and if we
don't, then we return the system user as an owner instead.
This also fixes an issue for the default project where you have no roles
(because by default, you don't) by updating the schema to allow an empty
list.
This PR is part 1 of returning project owners and your project roles for
the personal dashboard single-project endpoint.
It moves the responsibility of adding owners and roles to the project to
the service from the controller and adds a new method to the project
owners read model to take care of it.
I'll add roles and tests in follow-up PRs.
This PR adds all user-type owners of projects that you have access to to
the personal dashboard payload. It adds the new `projectOwners` property
regardless of whether you have access to any projects or not because it
required less code and fewer conditionals, but we can do the filtering
if we want to.
To add the owners, it uses the private project checker to get accessible
projects before passing those to the project owner read model, which has
a new method to fetch user owners for projects.
This change removes the flag used to anonymize project owners on the
way out. It was an issue in demo when we'd forgotten to configure the
email encryption. However, this issue has been resolved and we can
remove this check now.
This PR adds project owner information to the personal dashboard's
project payload.
To do so, it uses the existing project owners read model.
I've had to make a few changes to the project owners read model to
accomodate this:
- make the input type to `addOwners` more lenient. We only need the
project ids, so we can make that the only required property
- fall back to using email as the name if the user has no name or
username (such as if you sign up with the demo auth)
## Background
In #6380 we fixed a privilege escalation bug that allowed members of a
project that had permission to add users to the project with roles that
had a higher permission set than themselves. The PR linked essentially
constricts you only be able to assign users to roles that you possess
yourself if you are not an Admin or Project owner.
This fix broke expectations for another customer who needed to have a
project owner without the DELETE_PROJECT permission. The fix above made
it so that their custom project owner role only was able to assign users
to the project with the role that they posessed.
## Fix
Instead of looking directly at which role the role granter has, this PR
addresses the issue by making the assessment based on the permission
sets of the user and the roles to be granted. If the granter has all the
permissions of the role being granted, the granter is permitted to
assign the role.
## Other considerations
The endpoint to get roles was changed in this PR. It previously only
retrieved the roles that the user had in the project. This no-longer
makes sense because the user should be able to see other project roles
than the one they themselves hold when assigning users to the project.
The drawback of returning all project roles is that there may be a
project role in the list that the user does not have access to assign,
because they do not hold all the permissions required of the role. This
was discussed internally and we decided that it's an acceptable
trade-off for now because the complexities of returning a role list
based on comparing permissions set is not trivial. We would have to
retrieve each project role with permissions from the database, and run
the same in-memory check against the users permission to determine which
roles to return from this endpoint. Instead we opted for returning all
project roles and display an error if you try to assign a role that you
do not have access to.
## Follow up
When this is merged, there's no longer need for the frontend logic that
filters out roles in the role assignment form. I deliberately left this
out of the scope for this PR because I couldn't wrap my head around
everything that was going on there and I thought it was better to pair
on this with @chriswk or @nunogois in order to make sure we get this
right as the logic for this filtering seemed quite complex and was
touching multiple different components.
---------
Co-authored-by: Fredrik Strand Oseberg <fredrikstrandoseberg@Fredrik-sin-MacBook-Pro.local>
