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.
<details>
<summary>Feature Flag Cleanup</summary>
| Stale Flag | Value |
| ---------- | ------- |
| stripClientHeadersOn304 | true |
</details>
<details>
<summary>Trigger</summary>
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/issues/6559#issuecomment-2058848984
</details>
<details>
<summary>Bot Commands</summary>
`@gitar-bot cleanup stale_flag=value` will cleanup a stale feature flag.
Replace `stale_flag` with the name of the stale feature flag and `value`
with either `true` or `false`.
</details>
---------
Co-authored-by: Gitar Bot <noreply@gitar.co>
## 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 provides a service that allows a scheduled function to run in a
single instance. It's currently not in use but tests show how to wrap a
function to make it single-instance:
65b7080e05/src/lib/features/scheduler/job-service.test.ts (L26-L32)
The key `'test'` is used to identify the group and most likely should
have the same name as the scheduled job.
---------
Co-authored-by: Christopher Kolstad <chriswk@getunleash.io>
This PR adds a counter in Prometheus for counting the number of
"environment disabled" events we get per project. The purpose of this is
to establish a baseline for one of the "project management UI" project's
key results.
## On gauges vs counters
This PR uses a counter. Using a gauge would give you the total number of
envs disabled, not the number of disable events. The difference is
subtle, but important.
For projects that were created before the new feature, the gauge might
be appropriate. Because each disabled env would require at least one
disabled event, we can get a floor of how many events were triggered for
each project.
However, for projects created after we introduce the planned change,
we're not interested in the total envs anymore, because you can disable
a hundred envs on creation with a single action. In this case, a gauge
showing 100 disabled envs would be misleading, because it didn't take
100 events to disable them.
So the interesting metric here is how many times did you specifically
disable an environment in project settings, hence the counter.
## Assumptions and future plans
To make this easier on ourselves, we make the follow assumption: people
primarily disable envs **when creating a project**.
This means that there might be a few lagging indicators granting some
projects a smaller number of events than expected, but we may be able to
filter those out.
Further, if we had a metric for each project and its creation date, we
could correlate that with the metrics to answer the question "how many
envs do people disable in the first week? Two weeks? A month?". Or
worded differently: after creating a project, how long does it take for
people to configure environments?
Similarly, if we gather that data, it will also make filtering out the
number of events for projects created **after** the new changes have
been released much easier.
The good news: Because the project creation metric with dates is a
static aggregate, it can be applied at any time, even retroactively, to
see the effects.
This PR expands upon #6773 by returning the list of removed properties
in the API response. To achieve this, I added a new top-level `warnings`
key to the API response and added an `invalidContextProperties` property
under it. This is a list with the keys that were removed.
## Discussion points
**Should we return the type of each removed key's value?** We could
expand upon this by also returning the type that was considered invalid
for the property, e.g. `invalidProp: 'object'`. This would give us more
information that we could display to the user. However, I'm not sure
it's useful? We already return the input as-is, so you can always
cross-check. And the only type we allow for non-`properties` top-level
properties is `string`. Does it give any useful info? I think if we want
to display this in the UI, we might be better off cross-referencing with
the input?
**Can properties be invalid for any other reason?** As far as I can
tell, that's the only reason properties can be invalid for the context.
OpenAPI will prevent you from using a type other than string for the
context fields we have defined and does not let you add non-string
properties to the `properties` object. So all we have to deal with are
top-level properties. And as long as they are strings, then they should
be valid.
**Should we instead infer the diff when creating the model?** In this
first approach, I've amended the `clean-context` function to also return
the list of context fields it has removed. The downside to this approach
is that we need to thread it through a few more hoops. Another approach
would be to compare the input context with the context used to evaluate
one of the features when we create the view model and derive the missing
keys from that. This would probably work in 98 percent of cases.
However, if your result contains no flags, then we can't calculate the
diff. But maybe that's alright? It would likely be fewer lines of code
(but might require additional testing), although picking an environment
from feels hacky.
Don't include invalid context properties in the contexts that we
evaluate.
This PR removes any non-`properties` fields that have a non-string
value.
This prevents the front end from crashing when trying to render an
object.
Expect follow-up PRs to include more warnings/diagnostics we can show to
the end user to inform them of what fields have been removed and why.
## 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>
Converts `newContextFieldUI` release flag to
`disableShowContextFieldSelectionValues` kill switch.
The kill switch controls whether we show the value selection above the
search filed when > 100 values
---------
Signed-off-by: andreas-unleash <andreas@getunleash.ai>
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>
This change fixes the OpenAPI schema to disallow non-string properties
on the top level of the context (except, of course, the `properties`
object).
This means that we'll no longer be seeing issues with rendering
invalid contexts, because we don't accept them in the first place.
This solution comes with some tradeoffs discussed in the [PR](https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/6676). Following on from that, this solution isn't optimal, but it's a good stop gap. A better solution (proposed in the PR discussion) has been added as an idea for future projects.
The bulk of the discussion around the solution is included here for reference:
@kwasniew:
Was it possible to pass non string properties with our UI before?
Is there a chance that something will break after this change?
@thomasheartman:
Good question and good looking out 😄
You **could** pass non-string, top-level properties into the API before. In other words, this would be allowed:
```js
{
appName: "my-app",
nested: { object: "accepted" }
}
```
But notably, non-string values under `properties` would **not** be accepted:
```js
{
appName: "my-app",
properties: {
nested: { object: "not accepted" }
}
}
```
**However**, the values would not contribute to the evaluation of any constraints (because their type is invalid), so they would effectively be ignored.
Now, however, you'll instead get a 400 saying that the "nested" value must be a string.
I would consider this a bug fix because:
- if you sent a nested object before, it was most likely an oversight
- if you sent the nested object on purpose, expecting it to work, you would be perplexed as to why it didn't work, as the API accepted it happily
Furthermore, the UI will also tell you that the property must be a string now if you try to do it from the UI.
On the other hand, this does mean that while you could send absolute garbage in before and we would just ignore it, we don't do that anymore. This does go against how we allow you to send anything for pretty much all other objects in our API.
However, the SDK context is special. Arbitrary keys aren't ignored, they're actually part of the context itself and as such should have a valid value.
So if anything breaks, I think it breaks in a way that tells you why something wasn't working before. However, I'd love to hear your take on it and we can re-evaluate whether this is the right fix, if you think it isn't.
@kwasniew:
Coming from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle mindset I'm thinking if ignoring the fields that are incorrect wouldn't be a better option. So we'd accept incorrect value and drop it instead of:
* failing with client error (as this PR) or
* saving incorrect value (as previous code we had)
@thomasheartman:
Yeah, I considered that too. In fact, that was my initial idea (for the reason you stated). However, there's a couple tradeoffs here (as always):
1. If we just ignore those values, the end user doesn't know what's happened unless they go and dig through the responses. And even then, they don't necessarily know why the value is gone.
2. As mentioned, for the context, arbitrary keys can't be ignored, because we use them to build the context. In other words, they're actually invalid input.
Now, I agree that you should be liberal in what you accept and try to handle things gracefully, but that means you need to have a sensible default to fall back to. Or, to quote the Wikipedia article (selectively; with added emphasis):
> programs that receive messages should accept non-conformant input **as long as the meaning is clear**.
In this case, the meaning isn't clear when you send extra context values that aren't strings.
For instance, what's the meaning here:
```js
{
appName: "my-app",
nested: { object: "accepted", more: { further: "nesting" } }
}
```
If you were trying to use the `nested` value as an object, then that won't work. Ideally, you should be alerted.
Should we "unwind" the object and add all string keys as context values? That doesn't sound very feasible **or** necessarily like the right thing.
Did you just intend to use the `appName` and for the `nested` object to be ignored?
And it's because of this caveat that I'm not convinced just ignoring the keys are the right thing to do. Because if you do, the user never knows they were ignored or why.
----
**However**, I'd be in favor of ignoring they keys if we could **also** give the users warnings at the same time. (Something like what we do in the CR api, right? Success with warnings?)
If we can tell the user that "we ignored the `a`, `b`, and `c` keys in the context you sent because they are invalid values. Here is the result of the evaluation without taking those keys into account: [...]", then I think that's the ideal solution.
But of course, the tradeoff is that that increases the complexity of the API and the complexity of the task. It also requires UI adjustments etc. This means that it's not a simple fix anymore, but more of a mini-project.
But, in the spirit of the playground, I think it would be a worthwhile thing to do because it helps people learn and understand how Unleash works.
Via the API you can currently create gradualRollout strategies without
any parameters set, when visiting the UI afterwards, you can edit this,
because the UI reads the parameter list from the database and sees that
some parameters are required, and refuses to accept the data. This PR
adds defaults for gradualRollout strategies created from the API, making
sure gradual rollout strategies always have `rollout`, `groupId` and
`stickiness` set.
Provides store method for retrieving traffic usage data based on
period parameter, and UI + ui hook with the new chart for displaying
traffic usage data spread out over selectable month.
In this PR we copied and adapted a plugin written by DX for highlighting
a column in the chart:
There are some minor improvements planned which will come in a separate
PR, reversing the order in legend and tooltip so the colors go from
light to dark, and adding a month -sum below the legend
## Discussion points
- Should any of this be extracted as a separate reusable component?
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
