Fixing the issue where modal with an active segment (for deletion) can
change which segment it's listing if a new segment that is
alphabetically earlier than the original segment
This PR takes two steps towards better constraint handling:
## New type: `IConstraintWithId`
Introduces a new type, `IConstraintWithId`. This is the same as an
`IConstraint`, except the constraint id property is required. The idea
is that the list of editable constraints should move towards using this
instead of just `IConstraint`. That should prevent us (on a type-level)
from seeing more of the same kind of errors we saw with the segment
constraints yesterday.
I don't want to go ahead and update all the upstream uses of this to
IConstraintWithId in this PR, so I'll look at that separately.
## API payload constraint replacer
Introduces an api payload constraint "replacer", which we can use for
[JSON.stringify's `replacer`
parameter](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/JSON/stringify#the_replacer_parameter).
The current implementation works both for strategies and for segments
and has been added to edit + create forms for both of these resources.
This has a couple benefits:
1. We can clearly state exactly how we want them to be rendered,
including property order. I've decided to go with context -> operator ->
value(s) as the main one (check the screenie), as I believe this is the
most logical reading order.
2. We can exclude value/values (whichever one doesn't work with the
operator)
3. It doesn't matter how we treat constraints internally, we can still
present the payload how we want
4. Importantly: this only affects the stringification for the
user-facing API payload, so it's very low risk. It does not affect
anything that we actually send to the api.
Here's what it can look like with ordered properties:
<img width="392" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f46f77c8-0b5a-4ded-b13a-bb567df60bd3"
/>
This adds constraint ids to segment constraints used in editing
segments. Without them, there was a bug where when you went to edit the
segment, all constraints would be invisibly set to the same constraint.
Removes all usages of flag addEditStrategy and refactors code where
necessary.
This is only the first step of the cleanup. After this, there's still
lots of code to be removed. I've got a different PR that removes ~5k
lines of code (https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/10105) that I
want to reach in pieces to make sure that everythnig works on the way
there.
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>
The current implementation states that if you do not have
access—typically as a viewer user—it renders the old component.
Rendering an empty view is acceptable, as this is part of the segment
creation flow, and if you do not have permissions, you do not need to
see it.
This (admittedly pretty big) PR removes a component layer, moves all
logic for updating constraint values into a single module, and dumbs
down other components.
The main changes are:
- EditableConstraintWrapper is gone. All the logic in there has been
moved into the new `useEditableConstraint` hook. Previously it was split
between the wrapper, editableConstraint itself, the legalValues
component.
- the `useEditableConstraint` hook accepts a constraint and a save
function and returns an editable version of that constraint, the
validator for input values, a function that accepts update commands,
and, when relevant, existing and deleted legal values.
- All the logic for updating a constraint now exists in the
`constraint-reducer` file. As a pure function, it'll be easy to unit
test pretty thoroughly to make sure all commands work as they should
(tests will come later)
- The legal values selector has been dumbed down consiberably as it no
longer needs to create its own internal weak map. The internal
representation of selected values is now a set, so any kind of lookup is
now constant time, which should remove the need for the extra layer of
abstraction.
## Discussion points
I know the reducer pattern isn't one we use a *lot* in Unleash, but I
found a couple examples of it in the front end and it's also quite
similar to how we handle state updates to change request states. I'd be
happy to find a different way to represent it if we can keep it in a
single, testable interface.
Semi-relatedly: I've exposed the actions to submit for the updates at
the moment, but we could map these to functions instead. It'd make
invocations a little easier (you wouldn't need to specify the action
yourself; only use the payload as a function arg if there is one), but
we'd end up doing more mapping to create them. I'm not sure it's worth
it, but I also don't mind if we do 💁🏼
Code for constraint accordion was copy-pasted before previous
improvement. Old version is still in use for Segments. When we get to
improving constraint editing we should rebuild segments editing, without
use of this code.
As of PR #8935, we no longer support both text and title, and confetti
has been removed.
This PR:
- removes `confetti` from the toast interface
- merges `text` and `title` into `text` and updates its uses across the
codebase.
- readjusts the text where necessary.
This commit fixes invalid prop spreading warnings in all the table rows
I could find through a quick search in the code base.
The issue is that you can't spread the "key" prop into a component. It
*must* be an explicit prop.
The process is the same everywhere:
1. Instead of spreading `row.getRowProps()` into the component, we
extract and split it: `const {key, ...rowProps} = row.getRowProps()`.
2. Do the same thing for cellProps.
**Upgrade to React v18 for Unleash v6. Here's why I think it's a good
time to do it:**
- Command Bar project: We've begun work on the command bar project, and
there's a fantastic library we want to use. However, it requires React
v18 support.
- Straightforward Upgrade: I took a look at the upgrade guide
https://react.dev/blog/2022/03/08/react-18-upgrade-guide and it seems
fairly straightforward. In fact, I was able to get React v18 running
with minimal changes in just 10 minutes!
- Dropping IE Support: React v18 no longer supports Internet Explorer
(IE), which is no longer supported by Microsoft as of June 15, 2022.
Upgrading to v18 in v6 would be a good way to align with this change.
TS updates:
* FC children has to be explicit:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71788254/react-18-typescript-children-fc
* forcing version 18 types in resolutions:
https://sentry.io/answers/type-is-not-assignable-to-type-reactnode/
Test updates:
* fixing SWR issue that we have always had but it manifests more in new
React (https://github.com/vercel/swr/issues/2373)
---------
Co-authored-by: kwasniew <kwasniewski.mateusz@gmail.com>
Lots of work here, mostly because I didn't want to turn off the
`noImplicitAnyLet` lint. This PR tries its best to type all the untyped
lets biome complained about (Don't ask me how many hours that took or
how many lints that was >200...), which in the future will force test
authors to actually type their global variables setup in `beforeAll`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
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.
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.
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>
This PR fixes a bug reported from a customer where deleting a legal
value that was used in a strategy constraint would make it impossible to
edit the constraint.
[The bug was introduced
here](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/4473)
The core of the problem introduced was that the values used to calculate
illegal values was based on changing state. On the first render it would
display correct state as it would match the legal values coming from the
context definition with the legal values currently used in the
constraint as values. However, when you triggered the onClick method for
the checkboxes the state would be changed because we would remove the
illegal values from the valueset and only insert current legal values in
the state. This would trigger a re-render of the component, and now the
data used to identify the illegal values would no longer be correct,
because the bad values had been cleaned from the state. This would cause
the UI for constraints to display incorrectly.
Changed the flow to now give you a warning if you have illegal values,
and that if you make changes and save the strategy these values will be
removed from the constraint:
<img width="726" alt="Skjermbilde 2023-08-25 kl 08 56 02"
src="https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/16081982/78e9875d-d864-4e21-bfb7-a530247a07eb">
Also amended this to apply to the single legal value constraints.
<img width="721" alt="Skjermbilde 2023-08-25 kl 08 57 40"
src="https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/16081982/237a11d0-5c05-445c-9e99-b79cab0bff94">
This PR sends segments to CR drafts when you use the `add to draft`
button.
It also adds the logic for which environment to pick.
Segments sent to the API are added to drafts, but not displayed in the
UI yet. CRs with only segment changes are also not listed in the table.
This'll be covered in upcoming work.
Note: it doesn't work yet! It just throws an error.
This PR adds some logic to conditionally display "Add to draft" button
for segments if the segment is part of a project that has change
requests enabled and the flag is enabled.
Also adds a flag (`segmentChangeRequests`) to the frontend.
Holding off on actually adding the change to a draft until the API/orval
has been updated with the most recent changes.
