As it says on the tin. In an attempt to make all operations in Unleash
traceable to an originator. This PR adds created_by to role_permission,
which will show which user assigned a permission to a role.
This PR addresses some cleanup related to removing the
useLastSeenRefactor flag:
* Added fallback last seen to the feature table last_seen_at column
* Remove foreign key on environment since we can not guarantee that we
will get valid data in this field
* Add environments to cleanup function
* Add test for cleanup environments
`EXECUTE FUNCTION` was introduced in Postgres v11. In Postgres v10 the
syntax was `EXECUTE PROCEDURE`. This fix changes the syntax to `EXECUTE
PROCEDURE`, which is perfectly fine sense our function does not return
anything.
This PR adds a db table for CR schedules. The table has two columns:
1. `change_request` :: This acts as both a foreign key and as the
primary key for this table.
2. `scheduled_at` :: When the change is scheduled to be applied.
We could use a separate ID column for these rows and put a `unique`
constraint on the `change_request` FK, but I don't think that adds any
more value. However, I'm happy to hear other thoughts around it.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1531/rename-message-banners-to-banners
This renames "message banners" to "banners".
I also added support for external banners coming from a `banner` flag
instead of only `messageBanner` flag, so we can eventually migrate to
the new one in the future if we want.
As part of more telemetry on the usage of Unleash.
This PR adds a new `stat_` prefixed table as well as a trigger on the
events table trigger on each insert to increment a counter per
environment per day.
The trigger will trigger on every insert into the events base, but will
filter and only increment the counter for events that actually have the
environment set. (there are events, like user-created, that does not
relate to a specific environment).
Bit wary on this, but since we truncate down to row per (day,
environment) combo, finding conflict and incrementing shouldn't take too
long here.
@ivarconr was it something like this you were considering?
## About the changes
Add partial index on events by announced. This should help avoid `Seq
Scan on events` when the majority of events are announced=true
---
Co-authored-by: Ivar Østhus <ivar@getunleash.io>
Co-authored-by: Gard Rimestad <gard@getunleash.io>
This PR adds a feature naming pattern description to the project form.
It's rendered as a multi-line input field. The description is also
stored in the db.
This adapts most of @andreas-unleash's PR #4599 with some minor changes
(using description instead of prompt). Actually displaying this data to
the users will come in a later PR.
Adds a first iteration of feature flag naming patterns. Currently behind a flag.
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
Co-authored-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1136/custom-root-roles-documentation
- [Adds documentation referencing custom root
roles](https://unleash-docs-git-docs-custom-root-roles-unleash-team.vercel.app/reference/rbac);
- [Adds a "How to create and assign custom root roles" how-to
guide](https://unleash-docs-git-docs-custom-root-roles-unleash-team.vercel.app/how-to/how-to-create-and-assign-custom-root-roles);
- Standardizes "global" roles to "root" roles;
- Standardizes "standard" roles to "predefined" roles to better reflect
their behavior and what is shown in our UI;
- Updates predefined role descriptions and makes them consistent;
- Updates the side panel description of the user form;
- Includes some boy scouting with some tiny fixes of things identified
along the way (e.g. the role form was persisting old data when closed
and re-opened);
Questions:
- Is it worth expanding the "Assigning custom root roles" section in the
"How to create and assign custom root roles" guide to include the steps
for assigning a root role for each entity (user, service account,
group)?
- Should this PR include an update to the existing "How to create and
assign custom project roles" guide? We've since updated the UI;
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
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
As part of the move to enable custom-root-roles, our permissions model
was found to not be granular enough to allow service accounts to only be
allowed to create read-only tokens (client, frontend), but not be
allowed to create admin tokens to avoid opening up a path for privilege
escalation.
## How
This PR adds 12 new roles, a CRUD set for each of the three token types
(admin, client, frontend). To access the `/api/admin/api-tokens`
endpoints you will still need the existing permission (CREATE_API_TOKEN,
DELETE_API_TOKEN, READ_API_TOKEN, UPDATE_API_TOKEN). Once this PR has
been merged the token type you're modifying will also be checked, so if
you're trying to create a CLIENT api-token, you will need
`CREATE_API_TOKEN` and `CREATE_CLIENT_API_TOKEN` permissions. If the
user performing the create call does not have these two permissions or
the `ADMIN` permission, the creation will be rejected with a `403 -
FORBIDDEN` status.
### Discussion points
The test suite tests all operations using a token with
operation_CLIENT_API_TOKEN permission and verifies that it fails trying
to do any of the operations against FRONTEND and ADMIN tokens. During
development the operation_FRONTEND_API_TOKEN and
operation_ADMIN_API_TOKEN permission has also been tested in the same
way. I wonder if it's worth it to re-add these tests in order to verify
that the permission checker works for all operations, or if this is
enough. Since we're running them using e2e tests, I've removed them for
now, to avoid hogging too much processing time.
## 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. -->
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! ❤️ -->
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>
