https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1137/roles-unification-on-the-ui
Root and project roles should be managed in a similar manner, which
means using the same roles route and tab for both.
Additionally, this includes a big revamp to the project roles to align
them more closely with the modern and standardized custom root roles
that were recently developed. They mostly use the same components.
There are still more things we want to improve and unify, but we've left
some of that out of this PR due to PR size concerns.
<!-- 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. -->
Adds an environment variable for switching off feature telemetry in
version check
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1135/address-3975-pr-comments-by-refactoring-some-of-the-new-custom-root
This pull request addresses the majority of the comments raised in issue
#3975 and lays the groundwork for unifying roles. The idea is for
project roles to also be managed in the "Roles" tab, and several
components, such as `RoleForm` and the `useRoleForm` can potentially be
reused.
I'll leave the further investigation and implementation of unifying
roles to be addressed in a separate task.
As a mostly unrelated UI fix, this also adds an arrow to the tooltip in
the `RoleBadge` component.
<!-- 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! ❤️ -->
Implements the Advanced Playground Table
## 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 #
[1-1007](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-1007/env-aware-results-table)
<!-- (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? -->
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
This change adds a little more detail to the client metrics schema. The
description for variants felt a
little unclear.
---------
Co-authored-by: Christopher Kolstad <chriswk@getunleash.ai>
## 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>
## About the changes
Unleash version should be the one best representing its runtime. In this
regard, enterpriseVersion trumps unleash-server version.
This version is the one that's sent as part of our metrics.
<!-- 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. -->
Adds feature usage info and custom strategy counters to the version
check object.
<!-- 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? -->
<!-- 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? -->
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
## About the changes
Rationale: we're doing continuous deployment of every commit. We don't
want to bump versions with every deployment because it doesn't add
value.
Having a `-beta.xx` is also not relevant now, as any commit is deployed,
but the repository on itself is not published on npm as a different
version
We discussed some options: `rc` for release candidate, `beta`, but we
thought main reflects better that this version does not change unless
there's a reason for changing it (i.e. we're preparing the next version)
## About the changes
When a feature is not found in a project we should fail with a NotFound
error. If the feature belongs to a different project, it should not be a
permission issue, because the user might not be aware (lack of
permissions/visibility) of that other project, so even in this case the
error should be NotFound (this also works if we ever allow the same
feature name in different projects)
Fixes#3726
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
## About the changes
Edit application under
https://app.unleash-hosted.com/demo/applications/test-app is currently
not working as the appName is expected to come in the request body, but
it's actually part of the url. We have two options here:
1. We change the UI to adapt to the expectations of the request by
adding appName to the request body (and eventually removing appName from
the URL, which would be a breaking change)
2. We remove the restriction of only sending the appName in the body and
take the one that comes in the URL. We have a validation that verifies
that at least one of the two sets the appName
([here](e376088668/src/lib/services/client-metrics/instance-service.ts (L208))
we validate using [this
schema](e376088668/src/lib/services/client-metrics/schema.ts (L55-L70)))
In terms of REST API, we can assume that the appName will be present in
the resource `/api/admin/metrics/applications` (an endpoint we don't
have), but when we're updating an application we should refer to that
application by its URL: `/api/admin/metrics/applications/<appName>` and
the presence of an appName in the body might indicate that we're trying
to change the name of the application (something we currently not
support)
Based on the above, I believe going with the second option is best, as
it adheres to REST principles and does not require a breaking change.
Despite that, we only support updating applications as the creation is
done from metrics ingestion
Fixes: #3580
