Vitest Pros:
* Automated failing test comments on github PRs
* A nice local UI with incremental testing when changing files (`yarn
test:ui`)
* Also nicely supported in all major IDEs, click to run test works (so
we won't miss what we had with jest).
* Works well with ESM
Vitest Cons:
* The ESBuild transformer vitest uses takes a little longer to transform
than our current SWC/jest setup, however, it is possible to setup SWC as
the transformer for vitest as well (though it only does one transform,
so we're paying ~7-10 seconds instead of ~ 2-3 seconds in transform
phase).
* Exposes how slow our tests are (tongue in cheek here)
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>
In this PR I integrate the Unleash React SDK with the Admin UI.
We also take advantage of Unleash Hosted Edge behind the scenes with
multiple regions to get the evaluations close to the end user.
As part of preparation for ESM and node/TSC updates, this PR will make
Unleash build with strictNullChecks set to true, since that's what's in
our tsconfig file. Hence, this PR also removes the `--strictNullChecks
false` flag in our compile tasks in package.json.
TL;DR - Clean up your code rather than turning off compiler security
features :)
Trying again, now with a tested function for resolvingIsOss.
Still want to test this on a pro instance in sandbox before we deploy
this to our customers to avoid what happened Friday.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
## About the changes
- Remove `idNumberMiddleware` method and change to use `parameters`
field in `openApiService.validPath` method for the flexibility.
- Remove unnecessary `Number` type converting method and change them to
use `<{id: number}>` to specify the type.
### Reference
The changed response looks like the one below.
```JSON
{
"id":"8174a692-7427-4d35-b7b9-6543b9d3db6e",
"name":"BadDataError",
"message":"Request validation failed: your request body or params contain invalid data. Refer to the `details` list for more information.",
"details":[
{
"message":"The `/params/id` property must be integer. You sent undefined.",
"path":"/params/id"
}
]
}
```
I think it might be better to customize the error response, especially
`"You sent undefined."`, on another pull request if this one is
accepted. I prefer to separate jobs to divide the context and believe
that it helps reviewer easier to understand.
## About the changes
This fixes#8029. How to reproduce the issue is in the ticket.
The issue happens because when a web app is hosted in the same domain as
Unleash UI and the web app uses unleash SDK to make requests to Unleash,
the browser automatically includes the cookie in the request headers,
because:
- The request URL matches the cookie's Path attribute (which it does in
this case).
- The request is sent to the same domain (which it is, since both apps
are under the same domain).
And this is by design in the HTTP cookie specification:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6265
This PR avoids overriding the API user with the session user if there's
already an API user in the request. It's an alternative to
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/8434Closes#8029
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.
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-2501/adapt-origin-middleware-to-stop-logging-ui-requests-and-start
This adapts the new origin middleware to stop logging UI requests (too
noisy) and adds new Prometheus metrics.
<img width="745" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d0c7f51d-feb6-4ff5-b856-77661be3b5a9">
This should allow us to better analyze this data. If we see a lot of API
requests, we can dive into the logs for that instance and check the
logged data, like the user agent.
This PR adds some helper methods to make listening and emitting metric
events more strict in terms of types. I think it's a positive change
aligned with our scouting principle, but if you think it's complex and
does not belong here I'm happy with dropping it.
Our CSP reports that unsafe-inline is not recommended for styleSrc. This
PR adds a flag for making it possible to remove this element of our CSP
headers. It should allow us to see what (if anything) breaks hard.
Due to how we handle redirects of embedded proxy, we ended up counting
the same request twice. This PR adds a boolean to res.locals which we
then check if set to avoid double counting.
## About the changes
What's going on is the following:
1. When a token is not found in the token's cache we try to find it in
the db
2. To prevent a denial of service attack using invalid tokens, we cache
the invalid tokens so we don't hit the db.
3. The issue is that we stored this token in the cache regardless we
found it or not. And if the token was valid the first time we'd add a
timestamp to avoid querying this token again the next time.
4. The next iteration the token should be in the cache:
54383a6578/src/lib/services/api-token-service.ts (L162)
but for some reason it is not and therefore we have to make a query. But
this is where the query prevention mechanism kicks in because it finds
the token in the cache and kicks us out. This PR fixes this by only
storing in the cache for misses if not found:
54383a6578/src/lib/services/api-token-service.ts (L164-L165)
The token was added to the cache because we were not checking if it had
expired. Now we added a check and we also have a log for expired tokens.
Some improvement opportunities:
- I don't think we display that a token has expired in the UI which
probably led to this issue
- When a token expired we don't display a specific error message or
error response saying that which is not very helpful for users
This PR introduces a configuration option (`authentication.demoAllowAdminLogin`) that allows you to log in as admin when using demo authentication. To do this, use the username `admin`.
## About the changes
The `admin` user currently cannot be accessed in `demo` authentication
mode, as the auth mode requires only an email to log in, and the admin
user is not created with an email. This change allows for logging in as
the admin user only if an `AUTH_DEMO_ALLOW_ADMIN_LOGIN` is set to `true`
(or the corresponding `authDemoAllowAdminLogin` config is enabled).
<!-- Does it close an issue? Multiple? -->
Closes#6398
### Important files
[demo-authentication.ts](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/compare/main...00Chaotic:unleash:feat/allow_admin_login_using_demo_auth?expand=1#diff-c166f00f0a8ca4425236b3bcba40a8a3bd07a98d067495a0a092eec26866c9f1R25)
## Discussion points
Can continue discussion of [this
comment](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/6447#issuecomment-2042405647)
in this PR.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomasheartman+github@gmail.com>
## About the changes
This PR removes the feature flag `queryMissingTokens` that was fully
rolled out.
It introduces a new way of checking edgeValidTokens controlled by the
flag `checkEdgeValidTokensFromCache` that relies in the cached data but
hits the DB if needed.
The assumption is that most of the times edge will find tokens in the
cache, except for a few cases in which a new token is queried. From all
tokens we expect at most one to hit the DB and in this case querying a
single token should be better than querying all the tokens.
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.
Previously, we were not validating that the ID was a number, which
sometimes resulted in returning our database queries (source code) to
the frontend. Now, we have validation middleware.
Adds a bearer token middleware that adds support for tokens prefixed
with "Bearer" scheme. Prefixing with "Bearer" is optional and the old
way of authenticating still works, so we now support both ways.
Also, added as part of our OpenAPI spec which now displays authorization
as follows:
Related to #4630. Doesn't fully close the issue as we're still using
some invalid characters for the RFC, in particular `*` and `[]`
For safety reasons this is behind a feature flag
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
To check that users do indeed have permissions to update the roles from
project-service, we've been depending on req.user.id.
We had one error on Friday March 8th, where we managed to send
undefined/null to a method that requires a number. This PR assumes that
if we have an API token, and we have admin permissions and userId is not
set we're a legacy admin token.
It uses the util method for extractUserId(req: IAuthRequest | IApiRequest), so if we've passed through the apiTokenMiddleware first, we'll have userId -42, if we haven't, we'll get -1337.
## 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
}
}
}
}'
```
## 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?
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>
