Closes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/868
We should not allow to grant any writing permission (update, soft
delete, delete) on an object or at role-level without the reading
permission at the same level.
This has been implemented in the front-end at role level, and is yet to
be done at object level (@Weiko)
# Fix cursor-based pagination with lexicographic ordering for composite
fields
## Bug
The existing cursor-based pagination implementation had a bug when
handling composite fields.
When paginating through results sorted by composite fields (like
`fullName` with sub-properties `firstName` and`lastName`), the WHERE
conditions generated for cursor positioning were incorrect, leading to
records being skipped.
The previous implementation was generating wrong WHERE conditions:
For example, when paginating with a cursor like `{ firstName: 'John',
lastName: 'Doe' }`, it would generate:
```sql
WHERE firstName > 'John' AND lastName > 'Doe'
```
This is incorrect because it would miss records like `{ firstName:
'John', lastName: 'Smith' }` which should be included in forward
pagination.
## Fix
Create a new util to use proper lexicographic order when sorting a
composite field.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charlesBochet@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
In this PR
1. adding tests on relations and nested relations to make sure that if
any permission is missing, the query fails
2. adding tests on objectRecord permissions to make sure that
permissions granted or restricted by objectPermissions take precedence
on the role's allObjectRecords permissions
# Introduction
Diff description: ~500 tests and +500 additions
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/731
## What has been done here
In a nutshell on a field metadata type ( `SELECT MULTI_SELECT` ) update,
we will be browsing all `ViewFilters` in a post hook searching for some
referencing related updated `fieldMetadata` select. In order to update
or delete the `viewFilter` depending on the associated mutations.
## How to test:
- Add FieldMetadata `SELECT | MULTI_SELECT` to an existing or a new
`objectMetadata`
- Create a filtered view on created `fieldMetadata` with any options you
would like
- Remove some options ( in the best of the world some that are selected
by the filter ) from the `fieldMetadata` settings page
- Go back to the filtered view, removed or updated options should have
been hydrated in the `displayValue` and the filtered data should make
sense
## All filtered options are deleted edge case
If an update implies that a viewFilter does not have any existing
related options anymore, then we remove the viewFilter
## Testing
```sh
PASS test/integration/metadata/suites/field-metadata/update-one-field-metadata-related-record.integration-spec.ts (27 s)
update-one-field-metadata-related-record
SELECT
✓ should delete related view filter if all select field options got deleted (2799 ms)
✓ should update related multi selected options view filter (1244 ms)
✓ should update related solo selected option view filter (1235 ms)
✓ should handle partial deletion of selected options in view filter (1210 ms)
✓ should handle reordering of options while maintaining view filter values (1487 ms)
✓ should handle no changes update of options while maintaining existing view filter values (1174 ms)
✓ should handle adding new options while maintaining existing view filter (1174 ms)
✓ should update display value with options label if less than 3 options are selected (1249 ms)
✓ should throw error if view filter value is not a stringified JSON array (1300 ms)
MULTI_SELECT
✓ should delete related view filter if all select field options got deleted (1127 ms)
✓ should update related multi selected options view filter (1215 ms)
✓ should update related solo selected option view filter (1404 ms)
✓ should handle partial deletion of selected options in view filter (1936 ms)
✓ should handle reordering of options while maintaining view filter values (1261 ms)
✓ should handle no changes update of options while maintaining existing view filter values (1831 ms)
✓ should handle adding new options while maintaining existing view filter (1610 ms)
✓ should update display value with options label if less than 3 options are selected (1889 ms)
✓ should throw error if view filter value is not a stringified JSON array (1365 ms)
Test Suites: 1 passed, 1 total
Tests: 18 passed, 18 total
Snapshots: 18 passed, 18 total
Time: 27.039 s
```
## Out of scope
- We should handle ViewFilter validation when extracting its definition
from the metadata
https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1009
## Concerns
- Are we able through the api to update an RATING fieldMetadata ? ( if
yes than that's an issue and we should handle RATING the same way than
for SELECT and MULTI_SELECT )
- It's not possible to group a view from a MULTI_SELECT field
The above points create a double nor a triple "lecture" to the post hook
effect:
- ViewGroup -> only SELECT
- VIewFilter -> only SELECT || MULTI_SELECT
- Rating nothing
I think we should determine the scope of all of that
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
# 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 !
- Adding permission gates on workspaceMember to only allow user with
admin permissions OR users attempting to update or delete themself to
perform write operations on workspaceMember object
- Reverting some changes to treat workflow objects as regular metadata
objects (any user can interact with them)
- (fix) Block updates on soft deleted records
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
- closing https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/313
- adding permission gates on workspace settings and security settings
- adding integration tests for each of the protected setting and
security
