We talked with @nunogois that this test is testing migration from 2023,
but time has passed and the migration is working properly, so we think
to cut down on test run time, we can remove it.
Adds a postgres_version gauge to allow us to see postgres_version in
prometheus and to post it upstream when version checking. Depends on
https://github.com/bricks-software/version-function/pull/20 to be merged
first to ensure our version-function doesn't crash when given the
postgres-version data.
I've tried to use/add the audit info to all events I could see/find.
This makes this PR necessarily huge, because we do store quite a few
events.
I realise it might not be complete yet, but tests
run green, and I think we now have a pattern to follow for other events.
We encountered an issue with a customer because this query was returning
3 million rows. The problem arose from each instance reporting
approximately 100 features, with a total of 30,000 instances. The query
was joining these, thus multiplying the data. This approach was fine for
a reasonable number of instances, but in this extreme case, it did not
perform well.
This PR modifies the logic; instead of performing outright joins, we are
now grouping features by environment into an array, resulting in just
one row returned per instance.
I tested locally with the same dataset. Previously, loading this large
instance took about 21 seconds; now it has reduced to 2 seconds.
Although this is still significant, the dataset is extensive.
Previously, we were extracting the project from the token, but now we
will retrieve it from the session, which contains the full list of
projects.
This change also resolves an issue we encountered when the token was a
multi-project token, formatted as []:dev:token. Previously, it was
unable to display the exact list of projects. Now, it will show the
exact project names.
## About the changes
- Removes the feature flag for the created_by migrations.
- Adds a configuration option in IServerOption for
`ENABLE_SCHEDULED_CREATED_BY_MIGRATION` that defaults to `false`
- the new configuration option when set on startup enables scheduling of
the two created_by migration services (features+events)
- Removes the dependency on flag provider in EventStore as it's no
longer needed
- Adds a brief description of the new configuration option in
`configuring-unleash.md`
- Sets the events created_by migration interval to 15 minutes, up from
2.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
## About the changes
This PR establishes a simple yet effective mechanism to avoid DDoS
against our DB while also protecting against memory leaks.
This will enable us to release the flag `queryMissingTokens` to make our
token validation consistent across different nodes
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
The changes to arbitraries here is to make typescript agree with our
schema types. Seems like somewhere between 4.8.4 and 5.4.2, typescript
got stricter.
This column has not been used for 1.5 years and was replace by
**archived_at** column and people still get confused of why this is not
working as name suggests. Removing this column to remove technical debt.
## About the changes
Some of our metrics are not labeled correctly, one example is
`<base-path>/api/frontend/client/metrics` is labeled as
`/client/metrics`. We can see that in internal-backstage/prometheus:
This issue affects all endpoints that fail to validate the request body.
Also, endpoints that are rejected by the authorization-middleware or the
api-token-middleware are reported as `(hidden)`.
To gain more insights on our api usage but being protective of metrics
cardinality we're prefixing `(hidden)` with some well known base urls:
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/6400/files#diff-1ed998ca46ffc97c9c0d5d400bfd982dbffdb3004b78a230a8a38e7644eee9b6R17-R33
## How to reproduce:
Make an invalid call to metrics (e.g. stop set to null), then check
/internal-backstage/prometheus and find the 400 error. Expected to be at
`path="/api/client/metrics"` but will have `path=""`:
```shell
curl -H"Authorization: *:development.unleash-insecure-client-api-token" -H'Content-type: application/json' localhost:4242/api/client/metrics -d '{
"appName": "bash-test",
"instanceId": "application-name-dacb1234",
"environment": "development",
"bucket": {
"start": "2023-07-27T11:23:44Z",
"stop": null,
"toggles": {
"myCoolToggle": {
"yes": 25,
"no": 42,
"variants": {
"blue": 6,
"green": 15,
"red": 46
}
},
"myOtherToggle": {
"yes": 0,
"no": 100
}
}
}
}'
```
In order to stop privilege escalation via
`/api/admin/projects/:project/users/:userId/roles` and
`/api/admin/projects/:project/groups/:groupId/roles` this PR adds the
same check we added to setAccess methods to the methods updating access
for these two methods.
Also adds tests that verify that we throw an exception if you try to
assign roles you do not have.
Thank you @nunogois for spotting this during testing.
## 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 PR adds a property issues to application schema, and also adds all
the missing features that have been reported by SDK, but do not exist in
Unleash.
In order to prevent users from being able to assign roles/permissions
they don't have, this PR adds a check that the user performing the
action either is Admin, Project owner or has the same role they are
trying to grant/add.
This addAccess method is only used from Enterprise, so there will be a
separate PR there, updating how we return the roles list for a user, so
that our frontend can only present the roles a user is actually allowed
to grant.
This adds the validation to the backend to ensure that even if the
frontend thinks we're allowed to add any role to any user here, the
backend can be smart enough to stop it.
We should still update frontend as well, so that it doesn't look like we
can add roles we won't be allowed to.
Fixes ##5799 and #5785
When you do not provide a token we should resolve to the "default"
environment to maintain backward compatibility. If you actually provide
a token we should prefer that and even block the request if it is not
valid.
An interesting fact is that "default" environment is not available on a
fresh installation of Unleash. This means that you need to provide a
token to actually get access to toggle configurations.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
