## Background
In #6380 we fixed a privilege escalation bug that allowed members of a
project that had permission to add users to the project with roles that
had a higher permission set than themselves. The PR linked essentially
constricts you only be able to assign users to roles that you possess
yourself if you are not an Admin or Project owner.
This fix broke expectations for another customer who needed to have a
project owner without the DELETE_PROJECT permission. The fix above made
it so that their custom project owner role only was able to assign users
to the project with the role that they posessed.
## Fix
Instead of looking directly at which role the role granter has, this PR
addresses the issue by making the assessment based on the permission
sets of the user and the roles to be granted. If the granter has all the
permissions of the role being granted, the granter is permitted to
assign the role.
## Other considerations
The endpoint to get roles was changed in this PR. It previously only
retrieved the roles that the user had in the project. This no-longer
makes sense because the user should be able to see other project roles
than the one they themselves hold when assigning users to the project.
The drawback of returning all project roles is that there may be a
project role in the list that the user does not have access to assign,
because they do not hold all the permissions required of the role. This
was discussed internally and we decided that it's an acceptable
trade-off for now because the complexities of returning a role list
based on comparing permissions set is not trivial. We would have to
retrieve each project role with permissions from the database, and run
the same in-memory check against the users permission to determine which
roles to return from this endpoint. Instead we opted for returning all
project roles and display an error if you try to assign a role that you
do not have access to.
## Follow up
When this is merged, there's no longer need for the frontend logic that
filters out roles in the role assignment form. I deliberately left this
out of the scope for this PR because I couldn't wrap my head around
everything that was going on there and I thought it was better to pair
on this with @chriswk or @nunogois in order to make sure we get this
right as the logic for this filtering seemed quite complex and was
touching multiple different components.
---------
Co-authored-by: Fredrik Strand Oseberg <fredrikstrandoseberg@Fredrik-sin-MacBook-Pro.local>
Hooks up the new project read model and updates the existing project
service to use it instead when the flag is on.
In doing:
- creates a composition root for the read model
- includes it in IUnleashStores
- updates some existing methods to accept either the old or the new
model
- updates the OpenAPI schema to deprecate the old properties
During adding privateProjectsChecker, I saw that events composition root
is not used almost at all.
Refactored code so we do not call new EventService anymore.
PR #7519 introduced the pattern of using `createApiTokenService` instead
of newing it up. This usage was introduced in a concurrent PR (#7503),
so we're just cleaning up and making the usage consistent.
Deletes API tokens bound to specific projects when the last project they're mapped to is deleted.
---------
Co-authored-by: Tymoteusz Czech <2625371+Tymek@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
This fixes the issue where project names that are 100 characters long
or longer would cause the project creation to fail. This is because
the resulting ID would be longer than the 100 character limit imposed
by the back end.
We solve this by capping the project ID to 90 characters, which leaves
us with 10 characters for the suffix, meaning you can have 1 billion
projects (999,999,999 + 1) that start with the same 90
characters (after slugification) before anything breaks.
It's a little shorter than what it strictly has to be (we could
probably get around with 95 characters), but at this point, you're
reaching into edge case territory anyway, and I'd rather have a little
too much wiggle room here.
This PR removes the last two flags related to the project managament
improvements project, making the new project creation form GA.
In doing so, we can also delete the old project creation form (or at
least the page, the form is still in use in the project settings).
Fix project role assignment for users with `ADMIN` permission, even if
they don't have the Admin root role. This happens when e.g. users
inherit the `ADMIN` permission from a group root role, but are not
Admins themselves.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
This PR updates the project service to automatically create a project id
if it is not provided. The feature is behind a flag. If an ID is
provided, it will still attempt to use that ID instead.
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.
This PR adds functionality to the `createProject` function to choose
which environments should be enabled when you create a new project. The
new `environments` property is optional and omitting it will make it
work exactly as it does today.
The current implementation is fairly strict. We have some potential
ideas to make it easier to work with, but we haven't agreed on any yet.
Making it this strict means that we can always relax the rules later.
The rules are (codified in tests):
- If `environments` is not provided, all non-deprecated environments are
enabled
- If `environments` is provided, only the environments listed are
enabled, regardless of whether they're deprecated or not
- If `environments` is provided and is an empty array, the service
throws an error. The API should dilsallow that via the schema anyway,
but this catches it in case it sneaks in some other way.
- If `environments` is provided and contains one or more environments
that don't exist, the service throws an error. While we could ignore
them, that would lead to more complexity because we'd have to also check
that the at least one of the environments is valid. It also leads to
silent ignoring of errors, which may or may not be good for the user
experience.
The API endpoint for this sits in enterprise, so no customer-facing
changes are part of this.
