This PR does **one** thing:
it changes the events for potentially stale to:
- Only being emitted when potentially stale gets turned on
- In doing so, it also simplifies the event that's getting emitted,
removing the `data` property.
- The event is also renamed to better match the existing
`feature-stale-on` and `...-off` events.
The addon listening was broken out into a separate PR (#4279)
## Old description
This change lets all addons listen for events when features get marked
or unmarked as potentially stale.
### Discussion
#### All addons?
Should this be available to all addons? I can't see a reason why it
shouldn't be available to all addons, but I might be missing
something.
**Update**: spoke to a couple people. Can see no reason why this isn't
okay.
#### Should it be behind a flag?
The feature is still behind a flag, but the event type is not. Should
we gate the event being available until we actually emit the event?
That would require some more code, but could yield less potential
confusion.
Open to hearing your thoughts.
<!-- 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! ❤️ -->
wrap reorder event creation to strategy variant feature
## 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>
<!-- 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! ❤️ -->
Fixes a bug around createStrategy
Fix: Create/Store strategy reorder event only when feature is on
## 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>
This PR updates the feature type service by adding a new
`updateLifetime` method. This method handles the connection between the
API (#4256) and the store (#4252).
I've also added some new e2e tests to ensure that the API behaves as
expected.
<!-- 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! ❤️ -->
When reordering strategies for a feature environment:
- Adds stop when CR are enabled
- Emits an event
## 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>
This PR activates the event emission that was prepared for in
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/pull/4239.
It emits events (behind a flag) when something is marked as potentially
stale or the opposite.
It takes the features returned from the store and creates events out of
them.
The events only contain data, no preData. This is because the preData
can easily be inferred and because it gives a nicer event in the event
log.
Here is an image of the difference. The top event uses only data, so it
shows the name of the feature and the new potentiallyStale status. The
bottom event uses both preData and data, so it only shows the new
potentiallyStale status and not the feature name (unless you show the
raw event):
Should not be merged before #4239. Merge that and then rebase this off
main or cherry the commit.
## Discussion
### `preData`
Should we also use preData or is it enough to use only data? It seems
unnecessary in this event, but I'm open to hearing your thoughts.
### event author: `createdBy`
I've set `unleash-system` as the `createdBy` property on these events
because they are generated by the system. I found the same string used
some other places. However, it may be that there we want to use a
different author.
This PR adds updates the potentially stale status change events whenever
the potentially stale update function is run.
No events are emitted yet. While the emission is only a few lines of
code, I'd like to do that in a separate PR so that we can give it the
attention it deserves in the form of tests, etc.
This PR also moves the potentially stale update functionality from the
`update` method to only being done in the
`updatePotentiallyStaleFeatures` method. This keeps all functionality
related to marking `potentiallyStale` in one place.
The emission implementation was removed in
4fb7cbde03
## The update queries
While it would be possible to do the state updates in a single query
instead of three separate ones, wrangling this into knex proved to be
troublesome (and would also probably be harder to understand and reason
about). The current solution uses three smaller queries (one select, two
updates), as Jaanus suggested in a private slack thread.
This reverts commit 16e3799b9a.
<!-- 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? -->
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1232/implement-first-iteration-of-the-new-slack-app-addon
This PR implements the first iteration of the new Slack App addon.
Unlike the old Slack addon, this one uses a Slack App (bot) that is
installed to Slack workspaces in order to post messages. This uses
`@slack/web-api`, which internally uses the latest Slack API endpoints
like `postMessage`.
This is currently behind a flag: `slackAppAddon`.
The current flow is that the Unleash Slack App is installed from
whatever source:
- Unleash addons page;
- Direct link;
- https://unleash-slack-app.vercel.app/ (temporary URL);
- Slack App Directory (in the future);
- Etc;
After installed, we resolve the authorization to an `access_token` that
the user can paste into the Unleash Slack App addon configuration form.
https://github.com/Unleash/unleash/assets/14320932/6a6621b9-5b8a-4921-a279-30668be6d46c
Co-authored by: @daveleek
---------
Co-authored-by: David Leek <david@getunleash.io>
This PR lays most of the groundwork required for emitting events when
features are marked as potentially stale by Unleash. It does **not**
emit any events just yet. The summary is:
- periodically look for features that are potentially stale and mark
them (set to run every 10 seconds for now; can be changed)
- when features are updated, if the update data contains changes to the
feature's type or createdAt date, also update the potentially stale
status.
It is currently about 220 lines of tests and about 100 lines of
application code (primarily db migration and two new methods on the
IFeatureToggleStore interface).
The reason I wanted to put this into a single PR (instead of just the db
migration, then just the potentially stale marking, then the update
logic) is:
If users get the db migration first, but not the rest of the update
logic until the events are fired, then they could get a bunch of new
events for features that should have been marked as potentially stale
several days/weeks/months ago. That seemed undesirable to me, so I
decided to bunch those changes together. Of course, I'd be happy to
break it into smaller parts.
## Rules
A toggle will be marked as potentially stale iff:
- it is not already stale
- its createdAt date is older than its feature type's expected lifetime
would dictate
## Migration
The migration adds a new `potentially_stale` column to the features
table and sets this to true for any toggles that have exceeded their
expected lifetime and that have not already been marked as `stale`.
## Discussion
### The `currentTime` parameter of `markPotentiallyStaleFeatures`
The `markPotentiallyStaleFetaures` method takes an optional
`currentTime` parameter. This was added to make it easier to test (so
you can test "into the future"), but it's not used in the application.
We can rewrite the tests to instead update feature toggles manually, but
that wouldn't test the actual marking method. Happy to discuss.
## About the changes
Fix un-awaited promise on batch variant update - reduce function allowed
TS to skip Promise type.
---------
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! ❤️ -->
Wraps the whole `registerClientMetrics` function with try/catch to
return 400 on error
## 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 #
[1-1037](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-1037/return-4xx-error-for-incorrect-metrics-input)
<!-- (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>
## About the changes
- Adding descriptions and examples to tag and tag types schemas
- Adding standard errors, summaries, and descriptions to tag and tag
types endpoints
- Some improvements on compilation errors
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
In some of the places we used `NoAccessError` for permissions, other
places we used it for a more generic 403 error with a different
message. This refactoring splits the error type into two distinct
types instead to make the error messages more consistent.
This PR fixes an issue where events generated during a db transaction
would get published before the transaction was complete. This caused
errors in some of our services that expected the data to be stored
before the transaction had been commited. Refer to [linear issue
1-1049](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-1049/event-emitter-should-emit-events-after-db-transaction-is-commited-not)
for more info.
Fixes 1-1049.
## Changes
The most important change here is that the `eventStore` no longer emits
events when they happen (because that can be in the middle of a
transaction). Instead, events are stored with a new `announced` column.
The new event announcer service runs on a schedule (every second) and
publishes any new events that have not been published.
Parts of the code have largely been lifted from the
`client-application-store`, which uses a similar logic.
I have kept the emitting of the event within the event store because a
lot of other services listen to events from this store, so removing that
would require a large rewrite. It's something we could look into down
the line, but it seems like too much of a change to do right now.
## Discussion
### Terminology:
Published vs announced? We should settle on one or the other. Announced
is consistent with the client-application store, but published sounds
more fitting for events.
### Publishing and marking events as published
The current implementation fetches all events that haven't been marked
as announced, sets them as announced, and then emits them. It's possible
that Unleash would crash in the interim or something else might happen,
causing the events not to get published. Maybe it would make sense to
just fetch the events and only mark them as published after the
announcement? On the other hand, that might get us into other problems.
Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
## What
This adds openapi documentation for the Auth tagged operations and
connected schemas.
## Discussion points
Our user schema seems to be exposing quite a bit of internal fields, I
flagged the isApi field as deprecated, I can imagine quite a few of
these fields also being deprecated to prepare for removal in next major
version, but I was unsure which ones were safe to do so with.
## Observation
We have some technical debt around the shape of the schema we're
claiming we're returning and what we actually are returning. I believe
@gastonfournier also observed this when we turned on validation for our
endpoints.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.ai>
<!-- 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. -->
This removes the experimental feature flag that defaulted to turn off
telemetry collection
This PR adds strategy titles as an optional bit of data added to client
features. It's only added when prompted.
## Discussion points:
### getPlaygroundFeatures
The optional `includeStrategyId` parameter has been replaced by a
`getPlaygroundFeatures` in the service (and in the underlying store).
The playground was the only place that used this specific include, so
instead of adding more and making the interface for that method more
complex, I created a new method that deals specifically with the
playground.
The underlying store still uses an `optionalIncludes` parameter,
however. I have a plan to make that interface more fluid, but I'd like
to propose that in a follow-up PR.
<!-- 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! ❤️ -->
Remove strategy improvements flag
## 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 #
[1-1048](https://linear.app/unleash/issue/1-1048/remove-strategyimprovements-flag)
<!-- (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>
## 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>
## What
As part of the move to enable custom-root-roles, our permissions model
was found to not be granular enough to allow service accounts to only be
allowed to create read-only tokens (client, frontend), but not be
allowed to create admin tokens to avoid opening up a path for privilege
escalation.
## How
This PR adds 12 new roles, a CRUD set for each of the three token types
(admin, client, frontend). To access the `/api/admin/api-tokens`
endpoints you will still need the existing permission (CREATE_API_TOKEN,
DELETE_API_TOKEN, READ_API_TOKEN, UPDATE_API_TOKEN). Once this PR has
been merged the token type you're modifying will also be checked, so if
you're trying to create a CLIENT api-token, you will need
`CREATE_API_TOKEN` and `CREATE_CLIENT_API_TOKEN` permissions. If the
user performing the create call does not have these two permissions or
the `ADMIN` permission, the creation will be rejected with a `403 -
FORBIDDEN` status.
### Discussion points
The test suite tests all operations using a token with
operation_CLIENT_API_TOKEN permission and verifies that it fails trying
to do any of the operations against FRONTEND and ADMIN tokens. During
development the operation_FRONTEND_API_TOKEN and
operation_ADMIN_API_TOKEN permission has also been tested in the same
way. I wonder if it's worth it to re-add these tests in order to verify
that the permission checker works for all operations, or if this is
enough. Since we're running them using e2e tests, I've removed them for
now, to avoid hogging too much processing time.
<!-- 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
## 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>
<!-- 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? -->
## 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>
https://linear.app/unleash/issue/2-1071/prevent-users-from-disabling-password-authentication-when-there-are-no
Improves the behavior of disabling password based login by adding some
relevant information and a confirmation dialog with a warning. This felt
better than trying to disable the toggle, by still allowing the end
users to make the decision, except now it should be a properly informed
decision with confirmation.
- **Password based administrators**: Admin accounts that have a password
set;
- **Other administrators**: Other admin users that do not have a
password. May be SSO, but may also be users that did not set a password
yet;
- **Admin service accounts**: Service accounts that have the admin root
role. Depending on how you're using the SA this may not necessarily mean
locking yourself out of an admin account, especially if you secured its
token beforehand;
- **Admin API tokens**: Similar to the above. If you secured an admin
API token beforehand, you still have access to all features through the
API;
Each one of them link to the respective page inside Unleash (e.g. users
page, service accounts page, tokens page...);
If you try to disable and press "save", and only in that scenario, you
are presented with the following confirmation dialog:
This PR reuses the revision Id information from the "optimal 304 for
server SDKs" to improve the freshness of the frontend API config data.
In addition it allows us to reduce the polling (and eventually remove it
when we are confident).
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
