Adds a note to the resource limit docs about what resources have a minimum limit of 1.
Also updates the availability note in preparation for 6.2 GA
---------
Co-authored-by: Melinda Fekete <melinda.fekete@getunleash.io>
Also rebranded command bar to command menu, because that seems more
suitable.
Command bar is more like a horizontal/vertical list/bar of icons, like
sidebar. Command menu is more of a dropdown.
https://unleash-docs-git-command-docs-unleash-team.vercel.app/reference/command-menu
---------
Co-authored-by: melindafekete <melinda.fekete@getunleash.io>
This PR adds the first version of the resource limit documentation. It
also corrects the link in the `Limit` component.
In addition to the new limits from the soft limits project, I've also
added the limits from the signals project.
## Discussion points
I've set the Pro resource limits to projects and envs to the same value
as on the [plans & pricing](https://www.getunleash.io/pricing) page
instead of the actual hard soft limit. I think that makes messaging
easier and more consistent.
However, this does present us with a bit of a problem. Because we've
been pretty consistent at saying "no, you can't have more projects" for
Pro. But we're saying it's easy to change (when in actuality the limit
isn't enforced 💁🏼 )
## Screenie
It looks a little bit like this (but check the files or preview for the
actual text content)
Updates feature availability.
Banners is a feature that is already GA'd since Unleash 5.7, so beta
availability seems irrelevant now.
We removed the mention of planning to GA Signals & Actions in 5.12,
since that's not happening and we would prefer not to include these
mentions in the future.
Hello,
As discussed with @sighphyre, there were a number of problems with the
examples docs. This addresses the most pressing ones, namely:
- Corrected the link to the Jira plugin
- Added deprecation warning to Jira Server pages
- Removed the incomplete markdown table at the end of articles, and the
references to it
---------
Co-authored-by: Simon Hornby <liquidwicked64@gmail.com>
This change addresses the question in #6542 about using non-string
operators on string values by clarifying that Unleash SDK converts the
string values before performing the comparison.
<!-- 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. -->
<!-- Does it close an issue? Multiple? -->
Closes #
<!-- (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? -->
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
## About the changes
When edge is configured to automatically generate tokens, it requires
the token to be present in all unleash instances.
It's behind a flag which enables us to turn it on on a case by case
scenario.
The risk of this implementation is that we'd be adding load to the
database in the middleware that evaluates tokens (which are present in
mostly all our API calls. We only query when the token is missing but
because the /client and /frontend endpoints which will be the affected
ones are high throughput, we want to be extra careful to avoid DDoSing
ourselves
## Alternatives:
One alternative would be that we merge the two endpoints into one.
Currently, Edge does the following:
If the token is not valid, it tries to create a token using a service
account token and /api/admin/create-token endpoint. Then it uses the
token generated (which is returned from the prior endpoint) to query
/api/frontend. What if we could call /api/frontend with the same service
account we use to create the token? It may sound risky but if the same
application holding the service account token with permission to create
a token, can call /api/frontend via the generated token, shouldn't it be
able to call the endpoint directly?
The purpose of the token is authentication and authorization. With the
two tokens we are authenticating the same app with 2 different
authorization scopes, but because it's the same app we are
authenticating, can't we just use one token and assume that the app has
both scopes?
If the service account already has permissions to create a token and
then use that token for further actions, allowing it to directly call
/api/frontend does not necessarily introduce new security risks. The
only risk is allowing the app to generate new tokens. Which leads to the
third alternative: should we just remove this option from edge?
This change updates the change request scheduling docs to include
information about what happens when a strategy or segment is updated
in the background, as well as updated information about the emails
that it sends out.
