In this PR we are
- (if permissionsV2 is enabled) executing permission checks at query
builder level. To do so we want to override the query builders methods
that are performing db calls (.execute(), .getMany(), ... etc.) For now
I have just overriden some of the query builders methods for the poc. To
do so I created custom query builder classes that extend typeorm's query
builder (selectQueryBuilder and updateQueryBuilder, for now and later I
will tackle softDeleteQueryBuilder, etc.).
- adding a notion of roles permissions version and roles permissions
object to datasources. We will now use one datasource per roleId and
rolePermissionVersion. Both rolesPermissionsVersion and rolesPermissions
objects are stored in redis and recomputed at role update or if queried
and found empty. Unlike for metadata version we don't need to store a
version in the db that stands for the source of truth. We also don't
need to destroy and recreate the datasource if the rolesPermissions
version changes, but only to update the value for rolesPermissions and
rolesPermissionsVersions on the existing datasource.
What this PR misses
- computing of roles permissions should take into account
objectPermissions table (for now it only looks at what's on the roles
table)
- pursue extension of query builder classes and overriding of their db
calling-methods
- what should the behaviour be for calls from twentyOrmGlobalManager
that don't have a roleId?
## Context
Now that we can update role settings permissions, we need to reflect
that on the FE as well (hiding/showing nav items + redirection logic).
Feature flag check here is not really needed because since not having
any setting permission will result in the same behavior as Permission
V1.
This PR updates the resolvers to return settings permissions of the
current user
# Introduction
In this PR we've migrated `twenty-shared` from a `vite` app
[libary-mode](https://vite.dev/guide/build#library-mode) to a
[preconstruct](https://preconstruct.tools/) "atomic" application ( in
the future would like to introduce preconstruct to handle of all our
atomic dependencies such as `twenty-emails` `twenty-ui` etc it will be
integrated at the monorepo's root directly, would be to invasive in the
first, starting incremental via `twenty-shared`)
For more information regarding the motivations please refer to nor:
- https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/587
-
https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/281#issuecomment-2630949682
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/589
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/590
## How to test
In order to ease the review this PR will ship all the codegen at the
very end, the actual meaning full diff is `+2,411 −114`
In order to migrate existing dependent packages to `twenty-shared` multi
barrel new arch you need to run in local:
```sh
yarn tsx packages/twenty-shared/scripts/migrateFromSingleToMultiBarrelImport.ts && \
npx nx run-many -t lint --fix -p twenty-front twenty-ui twenty-server twenty-emails twenty-shared twenty-zapier
```
Note that `migrateFromSingleToMultiBarrelImport` is idempotent, it's atm
included in the PR but should not be merged. ( such as codegen will be
added before merging this script will be removed )
## Misc
- related opened issue preconstruct
https://github.com/preconstruct/preconstruct/issues/617
## Closed related PR
- https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/11028
- https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/10993
- https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/10960
## Upcoming enhancement: ( in others dedicated PRs )
- 1/ refactor generate barrel to export atomic module instead of `*`
- 2/ generate barrel own package with several files and tests
- 3/ Migration twenty-ui the same way
- 4/ Use `preconstruct` at monorepo global level
## Conclusion
As always any suggestions are welcomed !
A user should not be able to delete their account if they are the last
admin of a workspace.
It means that if a user wants to sign out of twenty, they should delete
their workspace, not their account
In this PR
- updateWorkspaceMemberRole api was changed to stop allowing null as a
valid value for roleId. it is not possible anymore to just unassign a
role from a user. instead it is only possible to assign a different role
to a user, which will unassign them from their previous role. For this
reason in the FE the bins icons next to the workspaceMember on a role
page were removed
- updateWorkspaceMemberRole will throw if a user attempts to update
their own role
- tests tests tests!
Closes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/393
- enforcing object-records permission checks in resolvers for now. we
will move the logic to a lower level asap
- add integration tests that will still be useful when we have moved the
logic
- introduce guest seeded role to test limited permissions on
object-records
In this PR, we are implementing the updateRole endpoint with the
following rules
1. A user can only update a member's role if they have the permission (=
the admin role)
2. Admin role can't be unassigned if there are no other admin in the
workspace
3. (For now) as members can only have one role for now, when they are
assigned a new role, they are first unassigned the other role (if any)
4. (For now) removing a member's admin role = leaving the member with no
role = calling updateRole with a null roleId
