## About the changes
EventsService is a dependency in most of our services. This creates
helper methods to create them easily and replace a few places where
we're creating them manually
### What
Adds `createdByUserId` to all events exposed by unleash. In addition
this PR updates all tests and usages of the methods in this codebase to
include the required number.
This PR fixes the issue discussed in SR-234, where you would get a 200
OK response even if your POST request to
`/api/admin/projects/<project-name>/access` contains invalid data (and
nothing is persisted).
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1403/consider-refactoring-the-way-tags-are-fetched-for-the-events
This adds 2 methods to `EventService`:
- `storeEvent`;
- `storeEvents`;
This allows us to run event-specific logic inside these methods. In the
case of this PR, this means fetching the feature tags in case the event
contains a `featureName` and there are no tags specified in the event.
This prevents us from having to remember to fetch the tags in order to
store feature-related events except for very specific cases, like the
deletion of a feature - You can't fetch tags for a feature that no
longer exists, so in that case we need to pre-fetch the tags before
deleting the feature.
This also allows us to do any event-specific post-processing to the
event before reaching the DB layer.
In general I think it's also nicer that we reference the event service
instead of the event store directly.
There's a lot of changes and a lot of files touched, but most of it is
boilerplate to inject the `eventService` where needed instead of using
the `eventStore` directly.
Hopefully this will be a better approach than
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/4729
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
## About the changes
This enables us to use names instead of permission ids across all our
APIs at the computational cost of searching for the ids in the DB but
improving the API user experience
## Open topics
We're using methods that are test-only and circumvent our business
logic. This makes our test to rely on assumptions that are not always
true because these assumptions are not validated frequently.
i.e. We are expecting that after removing a permission it's no longer
there, but to test this, the permission has to be there before:
78273e4ff3/src/test/e2e/services/access-service.e2e.test.ts (L367-L375)
But it seems that's not the case.
We'll look into improving this later.
Does what it says on the tin, should help with cleaning up
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/4512 and respective schema
changes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
<!-- 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. -->
Fixes an issue where project role deletion validation didn't validate
against project roles being connected to groups
## About the changes
`getUserRootRoles` should also consider custom root roles
This introduces test cases that unveiled a dependency between stores
(this happens actually at the DB layer having access-service access
tables from two different stores but skipping the store layer).
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1161/a-user-with-custom-root-role-and-permission-to-create-client-api
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
## About the changes
Implements custom root roles, encompassing a lot of different areas of
the project, and slightly refactoring the current roles logic. It
includes quite a clean up.
This feature itself is behind a flag: `customRootRoles`
This feature covers root roles in:
- Users;
- Service Accounts;
- Groups;
Apologies in advance. I may have gotten a bit carried away 🙈
### Roles
We now have a new admin tab called "Roles" where we can see all root
roles and manage custom ones. We are not allowed to edit or remove
*predefined* roles.
This meant slightly pushing away the existing roles to `project-roles`
instead. One idea we want to explore in the future is to unify both
types of roles in the UI instead of having 2 separate tabs. This
includes modernizing project roles to fit more into our current design
and decisions.
Hovering the permissions cell expands detailed information about the
role:
### Create and edit role
Here's how the role form looks like (create / edit):
Here I categorized permissions so it's easier to visualize and manage
from a UX perspective.
I'm using the same endpoint as before. I tried to unify the logic and
get rid of the `projectRole` specific hooks. What distinguishes custom
root roles from custom project roles is the extra `root-custom` type we
see on the payload. By default we assume `custom` (custom project role)
instead, which should help in terms of backwards compatibility.
### Delete role
When we delete a custom role we try to help the end user make an
informed decision by listing all the entities which currently use this
custom root role:
~~As mentioned in the screenshot, when deleting a custom role, we demote
all entities associated with it to the predefined `Viewer` role.~~
**EDIT**: Apparently we currently block this from the API
(access-service deleteRole) with a message:
What should the correct behavior be?
### Role selector
I added a new easy-to-use role selector component that is present in:
- Users
- Service Accounts
- Groups
### Role description
I also added a new role description component that you can see below the
dropdown in the selector component, but it's also used to better
describe each role in the respective tables:
I'm not listing all the permissions of predefined roles. Those simply
show the description in the tooltip:
### Role badge
Groups is a bit different, since it uses a list of cards, so I added yet
another component - Role badge:
I'm using this same component on the profile tab:
## Discussion points
- Are we being defensive enough with the use of the flag? Should we
cover more?
- Are we breaking backwards compatibility in any way?
- What should we do when removing a role? Block or demote?
- Maybe some existing permission-related issues will surface with this
change: Are we being specific enough with our permissions? A lot of
places are simply checking for `ADMIN`;
- We may want to get rid of the API roles coupling we have with the
users and SAs and instead use the new hooks (e.g. `useRoles`)
explicitly;
- We should update the docs;
- Maybe we could allow the user to add a custom role directly from the
role selector component;
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
