Let's introduce an object-limited role for Tim, to test and/or spot
incompatibilities with restricted permissions in the future.
Our main user tim@apple.dev is now assigned a role that has all settings
permissions, and all object permissions except for update on Pets (to
test read-only view) and read on Rockets.
Since we still need an admin user for each workspace we are introducing
a new member, Jane, who has the admin role
---------
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix@twenty.com>
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)
In this PR
- Determine object record permissions on workflows objects (workflow,
workflowVersion, workflowRun) base on settings permissions @Weiko
- Add Workflow permission guards on workflow resolvers @thomtrp . **Any
method within a resolver that has the SettingsPermission Guard is only
callable by a apiKey or a user that has the permission** (so not by
external parties).
- Add checks bypass in workflow services since 1) for actions gated by
settings permissions, the gate should be done at resolver level, so it
will have been done before the call to the service 2) some service
methods may be called by workflowTriggerController which is callable by
external parties without permissions (ex:
workflowCommonWorkspaceService.getWorkflowVersionOrFail). This is
something we may want to change in the future (still to discuss), by
removing the guard at resolver-level and relying on
shouldBypassPermissionChecks at getRepository and made in a way that we
only bypass for external parties.
- Add checks bypass for actions performed by workflows since they should
not be restricted in our current vision
- Add tests
# 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>
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
Closes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/605
Actually settingsPermissions checks were already implemented, but we had
no tests on them.
In the ticket we had mentioned
_TO DO: in pemissions.service we should stop calling
userRoleService.getRolesByUserWorkspaces and call
getRoleIdForUserWorkspace instead which relies on the cache._
But actually roleId is not enough for settings permissions because we
don't store them in the cache (unlien object records permissions - which
I think we had forgotten about when adding that TODO.), so we will still
need to make a db call to load the role's settingsPermissions. I think
it's better to make just one db call to get the role and
settingsPermissions from userWorkspaceId (as currently) than to make one
redis call to get roleId for userWorksapce then one db call to get role
and its settingsPermissions).
## Context
- Introduced objectPermissions in currentUserWorkspace which uses role
permissions from cache so we can fetch granular permissions from the API
- Refactored cached role permissions to map permissions with object
metadata id instead of object metadata name singular to be more flexible
New Cache
<img width="574" alt="Screenshot 2025-05-27 at 11 59 06"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1a090134-1b8a-4681-a630-29f1472178bd"
/>
GQL
<img width="977" alt="Screenshot 2025-05-27 at 11 58 53"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3b9a82b0-6019-4a25-a6e2-a9e0fb4bb8a0"
/>
Next steps: Use the updated API in the FE to fetch granular permissions
and update useHasObjectReadOnlyPermission hook
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
Closes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/526
(for reminder:
1. Make defaultRoleId non-nullable for an active workspace
2. Remove permissions V1 feature flag
3. Set member role as default role for new workspaces
About 1.:
An active workspace's defaultRoleId should never be null.
We can't rely on a simple postgres NOT NULL constraint as defaultRoleId
will always be initially null when the workspace is first created since
the roles do not exist at that time.
Let's add a more complex rule to ensure that
About 3.:
In the first phase of our deploy of permissions, we chose to assign
admin role to all existing users, not to break any existing behavior
with the introduction of the feature (= existing users have less rights
than before).
As we deploy permissions to all existing and future workspaces, let's
set the member role as default role for future workspaces.
)
# 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>
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!
- 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
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
Following a conversation with @etiennejouan and @martmull, we are adding
a permission gate on billing resolver's checkoutSession, which should
only be accessible to entitled users or at workspace creation (when
there are no roles yet), when the subscription is incomplete
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
