This PR adds a strategy sorting algorithm to be used for the segment
deletion dialog. It assumes that you have a list of existing strategies
and a list of change request strategies. Based on the content of these
two lists, it will create one unified list sorted after a number of
criteria (as listed in the test).
# Discussion point:
This impl does the sorting on the front end, but could we do it on the
back end? Instead of adding a new property to the segment data, could we
simply fold the change request strategies in with the existing segment
strategies and return it using the old property? If the only place we do
that is in this view, then that might be a good suggestion.
Response:
I'll leave this in the front end for now. The reason is that we can't add change request strategies to the existing `strategies` property of the API payload without it being a breaking change. The OpenAPI schema says that `id` is a required field on a strategy, and that field doesn't exist on strategies that have only been added in change requests, but not yet applied.
## About the changes
This feature allows our Enterprise customers to configure banners to be
displayed on their Unleash instance for all their users to see and
interact with. Previously known as "internal message banners".
This PR fixes a couple of issues with the pagination bar:
* Fixes an issue where padding bottom would be broken due to disabling
padding on the parent container
* Remove padding on the entire table to create more space and remove
header bar border radius as per discussion with @nicolaesocaciu
This PR makes changes to how the project overview skeleton screen works.
Important changes:
- Add skeleton screens to missing elements, creating a more
comprehensive loading screen
- Split the page into different loading sections, so that we can load
the table when we fetch the next page without affecting the rest of the
page.
https://www.loom.com/share/e5d30dc897ac488ea80cfae11ffab646
Next steps:
* Hide bar if total is less than 25
* Add FE testing
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/SR-169/ticket-1107-project-feature-flag-limit-is-not-correctly-updatedFixes#5315, an issue where it would not be possible to set an empty
flag limit.
This also fixes the UI behavior: Before, when the flag limit field was
emptied, it would disappear from the UI.
I'm a bit unsure of the original intent of the `(data.defaultStickiness
!== undefined || data.featureLimit !== undefined)` condition. We're in
an update method, triggered by a PUT endpoint - I think it's safe to
assume that we'll always want to set these values to whatever they come
as, we just need to convert them to `null` in case they are not present
(i.e. `undefined`).
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.
This PR reduces the overhead of making API calls on pages with heavy
renders. We forego loading states and default error handling in favor of
more speed by avoiding triggering multiple re-renders from the API call.
