In the BE we throw custom errors with precise error codes (e.g.
"LABEL_ALREADY_EXISTS") before catching them in filters and rethrowing
BaseGraphQLErrors (standard errors such as NotFoundError, UserInputError
etc.).
In the FE we were grouping sentries based on the error codes but we were
actually grouping by very broad codes such as "NOT_FOUND" or
"BAD_USER_INPUT", extracted from the BaseGraphQLErrors.
To fix that, we update the BaseGraphQLError constructor api to allow to
pass on the CustomError directly and retrieve from it the original code
and store it in existing property `subCode` that we will use in the FE
to send errors to sentry.
This new api also eases usage of `userFriendlyMessage` that is passed on
to the api response and therefore to the FE when CustomError is passed
on directly to the BaseGraphQLError constructor.
Fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/12867
Issue:
when you have a variable `toto` which is: `Record<string, MyType>` and
you do toto['xxx'], this will be typed as `MyType` instead of `MyType |
undefined`
Solutions:
- activate `noUncheckedIndexedAccess` check in tsconfig, this is the
preferred solution but will take time to get there (this raises 600+
errors)
- use a Map: cf https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/13125/files
- set the type to Partial<Record<string, MyType>>. Drawback is that when
you do Object.values(toto), you'll get `Array<MyType | undefined>`.
Hence why we have to filter these behind
<img width="1512" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d0a0bfed-c441-4e53-84c2-2da98ccbcf50"
/>
In this PR
- introduction of fieldPermission entity
- addition of upsertFieldPermission in role resolver
- computing of permissions taking fieldPermission into account. In order
to limit what is stored in Redis we only store fields restrictions. For
instance for objectMetadata with id XXX with a restriction on field with
id YYY we store:
`"XXX":{"canRead":true,"canUpdate":false,"canSoftDelete":false,"canDestroy":false,"restrictedFields":{"YYY":{"canRead":false,"canUpdate":null}}}`
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charlesBochet@users.noreply.github.com>
## Expected behavior
Described behavior regarding: (update | create) x (custom | standard) x
(icon, label, name, isSynced)
**Custom:**
- Field RELATION create: name, label, isSynced, icon should be editable
- Field RELATION update: name should not, icon label, isSynced should
- For other fields, icon, label, name, isSynced should be editable at
field creation | update
To simplify: Field RELATION name should not be editable at update
**Standards**
- Field: create does not makes sense
- Field: name should not, icon label, isSynced should (this will end up
in overrides)
To simplify, no Field RELATION edge case, name should not be editable at
update
**Note:** the FE logic is quite different as the UI is hiding some
details behind the syncWithLabel. See my comments and TODO there
## What I've tested:
(update | create) x (custom | standard) x (icon, label, name, isSynced,
description)
Currently, when a server query or mutation from the front-end fails, the
error message defined server-side is displayed in a snackbar in the
front-end.
These error messages usually contain technical details that don't belong
to the user interface, such as "ObjectMetadataCollection not found" or
"invalid ENUM value for ...".
**BE**
In addition to the original error message that is still needed (for the
request response, debugging, sentry monitoring etc.), we add a
`displayedErrorMessage` that will be used in the snackbars. It's only
relevant to add it for the messages that will reach the FE (ie. not in
jobs or in rest api for instance) and if it can help the user sort out /
fix things (ie. we do add displayedErrorMessage for "Cannot create
multiple draft versions for the same workflow" or "Cannot delete
[field], please update the label identifier field first", but not
"Object metadata does not exist"), even if in practice in the FE users
should not be able to perform an action that will not work (ie should
not be able to save creation of multiple draft versions of the same
workflows).
**FE**
To ease the usage we replaced enqueueSnackBar with enqueueErrorSnackBar
and enqueueSuccessSnackBar with an api that only requires to pass on the
error.
If no displayedErrorMessage is specified then the default error message
is `An error occured.`
This PR introduces a significant enhancement to the role-based
permission system by extending it to support AI agents, enabling them to
perform database operations based on assigned permissions.
## Key Changes
### 1. Database Schema Migration
- **Table Rename**: `userWorkspaceRole` → `roleTargets` to better
reflect its expanded purpose
- **New Column**: Added `agentId` (UUID, nullable) to support AI agent
role assignments
- **Constraint Updates**:
- Made `userWorkspaceId` nullable to accommodate agent-only role
assignments
- Added check constraint `CHK_role_targets_either_agent_or_user`
ensuring either `agentId` OR `userWorkspaceId` is set (not both)
### 2. Entity & Service Layer Updates
- **RoleTargetsEntity**: Updated with new `agentId` field and constraint
validation
- **AgentRoleService**: New service for managing agent role assignments
with validation
- **AgentService**: Enhanced to include role information when retrieving
agents
- **RoleResolver**: Added GraphQL mutations for `assignRoleToAgent` and
`removeRoleFromAgent`
### 3. AI Agent CRUD Operations
- **Permission-Based Tool Generation**: AI agents now receive database
tools based on their assigned role permissions
- **Dynamic Tool Creation**: The `AgentToolService` generates CRUD tools
(`create_*`, `find_*`, `update_*`, `soft_delete_*`, `destroy_*`) for
each object based on role permissions
- **Granular Permissions**: Supports both global role permissions
(`canReadAllObjectRecords`) and object-specific permissions
(`canReadObjectRecords`)
### 4. Frontend Integration
- **Role Assignment UI**: Added hooks and components for
assigning/removing roles from agents
## Demo
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/41732267-742e-416c-b423-b687c2614c82
---------
Co-authored-by: Antoine Moreaux <moreaux.antoine@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Bordeau <bordeau.lucas@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: Guillim <guillim@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charlesBochet@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Weiko <corentin@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: github-actions <github-actions@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix.malfait@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marie <51697796+ijreilly@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: martmull <martmull@hotmail.fr>
Co-authored-by: Thomas Trompette <thomas.trompette@sfr.fr>
Co-authored-by: Etienne <45695613+etiennejouan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Baptiste Devessier <baptiste@devessier.fr>
Co-authored-by: nitin <142569587+ehconitin@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Paul Rastoin <45004772+prastoin@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: prastoin <paul@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: Vicky Wang <157669812+vickywxng@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Vicky Wang <vw92@cornell.edu>
Co-authored-by: Raphaël Bosi <71827178+bosiraphael@users.noreply.github.com>
# Introduction
Following https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/12852
Discovered that:
- `relationCreationPayload` does not seem to be validated through the
input decorators
```ts
// TODO @prastoin implement validation for this with validate nested and dedicated class instance
@IsOptional()
@Field(() => GraphQLJSON, { nullable: true })
relationCreationPayload?: {
targetObjectMetadataId: string;
targetFieldLabel: string;
targetFieldIcon: string;
type: RelationType;
};
```
- Sending an unknown `targetObjectMetadataId` generates an
`internal_server_error` `500` @guillim on the go
## Coverage
```ts
PASS test/integration/metadata/suites/object-metadata/failing-field-metadata-relation-creation.integration-spec.ts
Field metadata relation creation should fail
✓ relation when targetFieldLabel is empty (109 ms)
✓ relation when targetFieldLabel exceeds maximum length (100 ms)
✓ relation when targetObjectMetadataId is unknown (97 ms)
✓ relation when targetFieldLabel contains only whitespace (103 ms)
✓ relation when targetFieldLabel conflicts with an existing field on target object metadata id (108 ms)
Test Suites: 1 passed, 1 total
Tests: 5 passed, 5 total
Snapshots: 5 passed, 5 total
Time: 2.629 s, estimated 3 s
```
Better catching label input
- there were absolutely no check on label when creating the target field
while doing a relation : we crearted these checks here.
- We keep the label quite open to special char as discussed with Felix.
so mostly checking length of label.
- We check that label does not already exists on the targetted object
- making sure the Target fieldinput label is checked before we create
it. The previous checks are not enough since the label goes through
anoteher merthod before going in the database
- validate-metadata-name-is-camel-case.utils.ts : making sure we can use
this error message for metadata name and for target label
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: prastoin <paul@twenty.com>
# Introduction
close https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/12343
Adding a transform step for any field phone in order to infer country
code and calling code from the number if they're provided
## Edges cases
```ts
RecordTransformerExceptionCode.INVALID_PHONE_NUMBER:
RecordTransformerExceptionCode.INVALID_PHONE_COUNTRY_CODE:
RecordTransformerExceptionCode.CONFLICTING_PHONE_COUNTRY_CODE:
RecordTransformerExceptionCode.CONFLICTING_PHONE_CALLING_CODE:
RecordTransformerExceptionCode.CONFLICTING_PHONE_CALLING_CODE_AND_COUNTRY_CODE:
RecordTransformerExceptionCode.INVALID_PHONE_CALLING_CODE:
RecordTransformerExceptionCode.INVALID_URL:
```
## Coverage
Note: Will handle REST api integration testing pivot and UPDATE
operation later in the afternoon, critical bug appeared that I prefer
handling before improving this PR coverage, also would be too many
updates
Note2: Haven't fuzzed all of the string inputs, would seem overkill for
such a use case, to be debated
```ts
PASS test/integration/metadata/suites/field-metadata/phone/create-one-field-metadata-phone.integration-spec.ts (23.609 s)
Phone field metadata tests suite
✓ It should succeed create primary phone field (1397 ms)
✓ It should succeed create primary phone field with number and other information (930 ms)
✓ It should succeed create primary phone field with full international format and other information (893 ms)
✓ It should succeed create primary phone field with full international and infer other information from it but not the countryCode as its shared (825 ms)
✓ It should succeed create primary phone field with full international and infer other information from it (818 ms)
✓ It should succeed create primary phone field with empty payload (827 ms)
✓ It should succeed create additional phone field with number and other information (894 ms)
✓ It should succeed create additional phone field with full international format and other information (1024 ms)
✓ It should succeed create additional phone field with full international and infer other information from it but not the countryCode as its shared (808 ms)
✓ It should succeed create additional phone field with full international and infer other information from it (751 ms)
✓ It should succeed create additional phone field with empty payload (739 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field without country or calling code at all (776 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with invalid country code (782 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with invalid calling code (858 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with conflicting country code and calling code (872 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with invalid phone number format (1489 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with conflicting phone number country code (1425 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with conflicting phone number calling code (1553 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field without country or calling code at all (814 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with invalid country code (813 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with invalid calling code (742 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with conflicting country code and calling code (783 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with invalid phone number format (731 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with conflicting phone number country code (947 ms)
✓ It should fail to create primary phone field with conflicting phone number calling code (822 ms)
Test Suites: 1 passed, 1 total
Tests: 25 passed, 25 total
Snapshots: 14 passed, 14 total
Time: 23.627 s
```
# What
Fully deprecate old relations because we have one bug tied to it and it
make the codebase complex
# How I've made this PR:
1. remove metadata datasource (we only keep 'core') => this was causing
extra complexity in the refactor + flaky reset
2. merge dev and demo datasets => as I needed to update the tests which
is very painful, I don't want to do it twice
3. remove all code tied to RELATION_METADATA /
relation-metadata.resolver, or anything tied to the old relation system
4. Remove ONE_TO_ONE and MANY_TO_MANY that are not supported
5. fix impacts on the different areas : see functional testing below
# Functional testing
## Functional testing from the front-end:
1. Database Reset ✅
2. Sign In ✅
3. Workspace sign-up ✅
5. Browsing table / kanban / show ✅
6. Assigning a record in a one to many / in a many to one ✅
7. Deleting a record involved in a relation ✅ => broken but not tied to
this PR
8. "Add new" from relation picker ✅ => broken but not tied to this PR
9. Creating a Task / Note, Updating a Task / Note relations, Deleting a
Task / Note (from table, show page, right drawer) ✅ => broken but not
tied to this PR
10. creating a relation from settings (custom / standard x oneToMany /
manyToOne) ✅
11. updating a relation from settings should not be possible ✅
12. deleting a relation from settings (custom / standard x oneToMany /
manyToOne) ✅
13. Make sure timeline activity still work (relation were involved
there), espacially with Task / Note => to be double checked ✅ => Cannot
convert undefined or null to object
14. Workspace deletion / User deletion ✅
15. CSV Import should keep working ✅
16. Permissions: I have tested without permissions V2 as it's still hard
to test v2 work and it's not in prod yet ✅
17. Workflows global test ✅
## From the API:
1. Review open-api documentation (REST) ✅
2. Make sure REST Api are still able to fetch relations ==> won't do, we
have a coupling Get/Update/Create there, this requires refactoring
3. Make sure REST Api is still able to update / remove relation => won't
do same
## Automated tests
1. lint + typescript ✅
2. front unit tests: ✅
3. server unit tests 2 ✅
4. front stories: ✅
5. server integration: ✅
6. chromatic check : expected 0
7. e2e check : expected no more that current failures
## Remove // Todos
1. All are captured by functional tests above, nothing additional to do
## (Un)related regressions
1. Table loading state is not working anymore, we see the empty state
before table content
2. Filtering by Creator Tim Ap return empty results
3. Not possible to add Tasks / Notes / Files from show page
# Result
## New seeds that can be easily extended
<img width="1920" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d290d130-2a5f-44e6-b419-7e42a89eec4b"
/>
## -5k lines of code
## No more 'metadata' dataSource (we only have 'core)
## No more relationMetadata (I haven't drop the table yet it's not
referenced in the code anymore)
## We are ready to fix the 6 months lag between current API results and
our mocked tests
## No more bug on relation creation / deletion
---------
Co-authored-by: Weiko <corentin@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix@twenty.com>
# Integration test failing
- fix the local run by renaming folder in the jest configuration.
Otherwise "clickhouse" tests were failing
- falsy test introduced 2 days ago in
https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/12271/files
# 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
Big diff a lot of tests and snapshots ( real diff < 500+ )
close https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/12117
close https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/12133
## What has been done here
Implemented a strong integration coverage on both fieldmetadata`SELECT`
`UPDATE` and `CREATE`.
Implemented server side validation for the options `value` `label` `id`
and collision issue with also `position`
We could improve:
- Position validation
- DefaultValue validation
## Update
```ts
PASS test/integration/metadata/suites/field-metadata/update-one-field-metadata-select.integration-spec.ts (41.054 s)
Field metadata select update tests group
✓ Update should succeed with provided option id (2565 ms)
✓ Update should succeed with valid default value (1469 ms)
✓ Update should succeed with various options id (1257 ms)
✓ Update should succeed without option id (1286 ms)
✓ Update should trim option values (1366 ms)
✓ Update should succeed with default value and no options (1122 ms)
✓ Update should fail with unknown default value and no options (1075 ms)
✓ Update should fail with only white spaces id (1195 ms)
✓ Update should fail with empty string id (1058 ms)
✓ Update should fail with null id (1066 ms)
✓ Update should fail with not a string id (1098 ms)
✓ Update should fail with too long id (1373 ms)
✓ Update should fail with only white spaces label (1034 ms)
✓ Update should fail with empty string label (1057 ms)
✓ Update should fail with null label (1100 ms)
✓ Update should fail with not a string label (1144 ms)
✓ Update should fail with too long label (1273 ms)
✓ Update should fail with only white spaces value (1385 ms)
✓ Update should fail with empty string value (1035 ms)
✓ Update should fail with null value (1068 ms)
✓ Update should fail with not a string value (1021 ms)
✓ Update should fail with too long value (1134 ms)
✓ Update should fail with invalid option id (1137 ms)
✓ Update should fail with empty options (1238 ms)
✓ Update should fail with invalid option value format (1104 ms)
✓ Update should fail with comma in option label (1004 ms)
✓ Update should fail with duplicated option values (1015 ms)
✓ Update should fail with duplicated option ids (1079 ms)
✓ Update should fail with duplicated option positions (1266 ms)
✓ Update should fail with duplicated trimmed option values (1220 ms)
✓ Update should fail with undefined option label (1029 ms)
✓ Update should fail with an invalid default value (1142 ms)
✓ Update should fail with an unknown default value (1081 ms)
✓ Update should fail with undefined option value (1086 ms)
Test Suites: 1 passed, 1 total
Tests: 34 passed, 34 total
Snapshots: 28 passed, 28 total
Time: 41.079 s
```
## Create
```ts
PASS test/integration/metadata/suites/field-metadata/create-one-field-metadata-select.integration-spec.ts (38.292 s)
Field metadata select creation tests group
✓ Create should succeed with provided option id (2096 ms)
✓ Create should succeed with valid default value (1316 ms)
✓ Create should succeed with various options id (1113 ms)
✓ Create should succeed without option id (1378 ms)
✓ Create should trim option values (1296 ms)
✓ Create should fail with only white spaces id (1000 ms)
✓ Create should fail with empty string id (1325 ms)
✓ Create should fail with null id (1060 ms)
✓ Create should fail with not a string id (1142 ms)
✓ Create should fail with too long id (1321 ms)
✓ Create should fail with only white spaces label (999 ms)
✓ Create should fail with empty string label (1163 ms)
✓ Create should fail with null label (1198 ms)
✓ Create should fail with not a string label (1678 ms)
✓ Create should fail with too long label (1527 ms)
✓ Create should fail with only white spaces value (1200 ms)
✓ Create should fail with empty string value (1102 ms)
✓ Create should fail with null value (1037 ms)
✓ Create should fail with not a string value (1462 ms)
✓ Create should fail with too long value (896 ms)
✓ Create should fail with invalid option id (997 ms)
✓ Create should fail with empty options (1058 ms)
✓ Create should fail with invalid option value format (1190 ms)
✓ Create should fail with comma in option label (1142 ms)
✓ Create should fail with duplicated option values (872 ms)
✓ Create should fail with duplicated option ids (860 ms)
✓ Create should fail with duplicated option positions (1002 ms)
✓ Create should fail with duplicated trimmed option values (1336 ms)
✓ Create should fail with undefined option label (754 ms)
✓ Create should fail with an invalid default value (696 ms)
✓ Create should fail with an unknown default value (678 ms)
✓ Create should fail with undefined option value (699 ms)
✓ Create should fail with null options (720 ms)
✓ Create should fail with undefined options (686 ms)
Test Suites: 1 passed, 1 total
Tests: 34 passed, 34 total
Snapshots: 29 passed, 29 total
Time: 38.314 s
```
## Conclusion
As always any suggestions are welcomed ! Please let me know
## Discussion about validation governance
### Front
Front side will be dealing with zod validations schema that he will
handle and maintain by himself
### Back validation instances
- Validation hold through DTO declarations ( run by yoga through the
resolvers )
- Server programmatic validation and exceptions handling ( run through
the services )
For this refactor/fix we decided to stick to the current implementation
only touching the `Server programmatic validation and exceptions
handling` we will handle validation centralization when we will onboard
the `nestjs-query` deprecation/integration refactor.
### Vision
In the best of the world we could think of an intermediary model that
will handle and take responsibility of the validation decorators that
would be run programmatically through the service, Yoga would still
consume it ? then we would need to have enough grain in the service to
know the input has already validated
## Notes
Introduced zod back side in order to handle very atomic and primitive
validation
In this PR:
- Remove deactivated objects from ActivityTargetInlineCell record picker
- Prevent users to deactivate createdAt, updatedAt, deletedAt fields on
any objects
Still left:
- write unit tests on the assert utils
- write integration tests on field metadata service
- prevent users to deactivate createdAt, updatedAt, deletedAt on FE
# 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 !
## Context
- Removing search* integration tests instead of fixing them because they
will be replaced by global search very soon
- Fixed billing + add missing seeds to make them work
- Fixed integration tests not using consistently the correct "test" db
- Fixed ci not running the with-db-reset configuration due to nx
configuration being used twice for different level of the command
- Enriched .env.test
- Fixed parts where exceptions were not thrown properly and not caught
by exception handler to convert to 400 when needed
- Refactored feature flag service that had 2 different implementations
in lab and admin panel + added tests
- Fixed race condition when migrations are created at the same timestamp
and doing the same type of operation, in this case object deletion could
break because table could be deleted earlier than its relations
- Fixed many integration tests that were not up to date since the CI has
been broken for a while
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charlesBochet@users.noreply.github.com>
# Introduction
This PR contains several SNAPSHOT files explaining big +
While refactoring the Object Model settings page in
https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/10653, encountered a critical
issue when submitting either one or both names with `""` empty string
hard corrupting a workspace.
This motivate this PR reviewing server side validation
I feel like we could share zod schema between front and back
## Refactored server validation
What to expect from Names:
- Plural and singular have to be different ( case insensitive and
trimmed check )
- Contains only a-z A-Z and 0-9
- Follows camelCase
- Is not empty => Is not too short ( 1 )
- Is not too long ( 63 )
- Is case insensitive( fooBar and fOoBar now rejected )
What to expect from Labels:
- Plural and singular have to be different ( case insensitive and
trimmed check )
- Is not empty => Is not too short ( 1 )
- Is not too long ( 63 )
- Is case insensitive ( fooBar and fOoBar now rejected )
close https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/10694
## Creation integrations tests
Created new integrations tests, following
[EachTesting](https://jestjs.io/docs/api#testeachtablename-fn-timeout)
pattern and uses snapshot to assert errors message. These tests cover
several failing use cases and started to implement ones for the happy
path but object metadata item deletion is currently broken unless I'm
mistaken @Weiko is on it
## Notes
- [ ] As we've added new validation rules towards names and labels we
should scan db in order to standardize existing values using either a
migration command or manual check
- [ ] Will review in an other PR the update path, adding integrations
tests and so on
Adding permission gates on all workspace-invitations endpoints:
sendInvitation, resendInvitation, deleteWorkspaceInvitation,
findWorkspaceInvitations (the latter being from my understanding only
used to list the invitations to then re-send them or detee them).
+ tests on Api & webhooks permission gates
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
Fixes#9827
Also uncovered a conflict with `@objectType('Relation')` and
`@objectType('relation)`
I don't want to address it in this PR so I will create a followup issue
when we close this but I think there's a confusion between
Relation/RelationMetadata, it's unclear what is what
---------
Co-authored-by: Antoine Moreaux <moreaux.antoine@gmail.com>
isLabelSyncedWithName should be nullable for fieldMetadata, as it is for
objectMetadata.
+ Adding missing validation on label and name sync in
fieldMetadataService for creation and update
+ adding metadata tests
In this PR
1. Add integration tests for /metadata (master issue:
https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/8719)
2. Fix relation deletion: index on "from" object was not deleted,
impeding creation of a new relation between the same two objects A and B
after relation between A and B was deleted
