## About the changes
This adds a Makefile to make it easy to test migrations from one version
of Unleash to another.
The script depends on [docker compose
V2](https://docs.docker.com/compose/migrate/)
**Before starting**: make sure you're inside test-migrations folder and
run `make clean` to be in a clean state.
We can run 2 versions of Unleash side by side with a shared database
(the second version will apply migrations to the DB):
```shell
UNLEASH_DOCKER_IMAGE=unleashorg/unleash-server:5.6.10 make start-unleash # defaults to port 4242
UNLEASH_DOCKER_IMAGE=unleashorg/unleash-server:latest make start-another-unleash # defaults to port 4243
make test # run basic UI tests against port 4242 (first image)
EXPOSED_PORT=4243 make test # run basic UI tests against port 4243
```
This also enables us to test our local repository with our code of
Unleash server running at port 4244 (`EXPOSE_PORT=4444 make run-current`
if you want to change it):
```shell
UNLEASH_DOCKER_IMAGE=unleashorg/unleash-server:5.6.10 make start-unleash # defaults to port 4242
make run-current # exposes the current backend at 4244
```
You can also connect the latest UI to any of the ports specified above,
starting the UI at port 3000:
```shell
EXPOSED_PORT=4242 make run-current-ui # exposed port defaults to 4244 which is the port of the current backend
```
Today we include a lot of "secutiry headers" for all API calls. Quite a
lot of them are only relevent when we return a HTML document for the
browser.
This PR removes and simplify these headers for API calls, so that we do
not include unecessary data in the HTTP headers.
Each header have been carfully examied by following best practices from
these source:
-
https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/REST_Security_Cheat_Sheet.html
- https://owasp.org/www-project-secure-headers/
This feature is protected with feature flag named 'stripHeadersOnAPI'.
This PR is the first step in separating the client and admin stores.
Currently our feature toggle services uses the client store to serve
multiple purposes.
Admin API uses the feature toggle service to serve both the feature
toggle list and playground features, while the client API uses the
feature toggle service to serve client features. The admin API can
change often and have very different requirements than the client API,
which changes infrequently and generally keeps the same stable structure
for long periods of time. This architecture is error prone, because when
you need to make changes to the admin API, you can very easily affect
the client API.
I aim to put up a stone wall between the two APIs. Complete separation
between the two APIs, at the cost of some duplication.
In this PR I have created a feature oriented architecture for client
features and disconnected the client API from the feature toggle
service. It now goes through it's own service to it's own store. For
feature toggle service I have duplicated and replaced the functionality
that serves /api/admin/features, I have kept a lot of the ugliness in
the code and haven't removed anything in order to avoid breaking
changes.
Next steps:
* Move playground to admin API
* Remove client-feature-toggle-store from feature-toggle-service
## About the changes
This transactional implementation decorates a service with a
transactional method that removes the need to start transactions in the
method using the service.
This is a gradual rollout with a feature toggle, just because
transactions are not easy.
## About the changes
Adds optional support for specifying JSON templates for datadog message
payload
### 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? -->
`frontend/src/component/integrations/IntegrationForm/IntegrationParameters/IntegrationParameter/IntegrationParameterEnableWithDropdown.tsx`
- a new component comprising of a text field and a dropdown menu
`src/lib/addons/datadog.ts` - Where the integration is taking place
## Discussion points
<!-- Anything about the PR you'd like to discuss before it gets merged?
Got any questions or doubts? -->
- Should I have implemented the new component type as a specifiable
addon parameter type in definitions? Felt a bit YAGNI/Premature
- Would like input on naming and the new component etc
