Closes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1248
- Create listeners on each CRUD operation for all view related objects
and update the core views accordingly
Some fields have to be parsed since we changed the data model a little
bit when switching to core views.
Fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/13398
This bug was introduced by https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/13215
The emails were empty in scenarios where the user wasn't authenticated
(reset passwords for instance) because in `hydrateGraphqlRequest` the
information about the locale was added only if the user was
authenticated `!this.isTokenPresent(request)`. So the locale was
undefined making ` i18n.activate(undefined) ` fail silently resulting in
an empty email.
# Why
If we have a Morph Relation, like :
Opportunity <-> Company & People
Let's say it's a MANY_TO_ONE on Opportunity side
Then we have two joinColumnNames looking like
- ownerPersonId
- ownerCompanyId
Let's say someone renames the obejct Person (assume we can even though
standard obejcts cannot be renames per say at the moment in the API)
We need to update the joinColumnName and create the associated
migrations
# Introduction
Created the runner metadata for the field and object
We should keep in mind that any runner handler will only iterate over an
atomic instance of entity ( object field index etc )
Never triggerring any side effect or whats over
In this way we will need to implement a deferred transaction, as for
when we create a relation we will inject to the first created field of
both the `relationTargetFieldMetadataId` deterministically computed
before its own creation
This would result in pg constraint brokage if not deferred
## Updates
- We decided gather create_fields under the create_object as they will
be building within the same sql query. This will ease both generation
and computation and avoid disassembling to reassemble afterwards
- Refactored FlatFieldMetadata to handle relation typing with flat
occurences
```ts
runCreateFieldSchemaMigration = async ({
action,
queryRunner,
}: WorkspaceMigrationActionRunnerArgs<CreateFieldAction>) => {
if (isFlatFieldMetadataEntityOfType(action.flatFieldMetadata, FieldMetadataType.RELATION)) {
action.flatFieldMetadata.flatRelationTargetObjectMetadata
}else {
action.flatFieldMetadata.flatRelationTargetObjectMetadata // tsc-error never
}
return;
};
```
## TODO
- ~~Discuss action signature with @Weiko in order to anticipate `schema`
runner needed grain~~
- ~~Refactor the object actions to contain picked `flatObjectMetadata`~~
- Implem index service
This PR adapts teh deleteOneField to make sure morph relations can be
deleted, either
- from a relation type,
- or from a morph relation type (which is the most obvious case).
This PR covers
- the deletion of fieldMetadata
- and the migrationof workspace schemas, by using the already existing
definition of relation migrations
This PR implements a new test suite: "Delete Object metadata with morph
relation" and completes the other test suites for FieldMetadata and
ObjectMetadata creation/deletion.
Last, we added a nitpick from @paul I forgot on a previous PR on
process-nested-realtion-v2
Fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1197
- Renamed `WorkflowActionAdapter` to `ToolExecutorWorkflowAction`
- Renamed `settingPermission` table to `permissionFlag` and `setting`
column to `flag`
- Decoupled the send email logic from workflows to tools
- Add new `Tools Permission` section in FE
---------
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix.malfait@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix@twenty.com>
This PR adds the ability to save an any field filter to a view.
It adds a new `anyFieldFilterValue` on both core view and workspace view
entities.
It also introduces the necessary utils that mimic the logic that manages
the save of record filters and record sorts on views.
In this PR, behind a feature flag, we add a permission layer check based
on the read permission.
It is done by computing a map of an object's fields, where keys are the
column names and values the fieldMetadata id, making them comparable to
the restricted fields ids list stored in the permission cache.
For mutations (create, update, delete, destroy), we need to check the
read permission on the returned field, as they may differ from the
updated field. The write field permission will be tackled in a different
PR.
# Introduction
Following https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/13264, this PR
introduces several `fieldMetadataEntity` typing enhancement suggestions.
Mainly any nullable field metadata entity properties are now either
nullable or defined.
Or never if field is dynamically required or not depending on the field
metadata type
This enhance DevX
## Standards
- field enum ( `MULTI_SELECT`, `SELECT`, `RATING` ) will never have
`options` set to `NULL` in db
- field `RELATION` or `MORH_RELATION` won't ever have its relation
fields set to `NULL` in db
- field of any type `settings`, even if possibly defined, can still be
`NULL` in db
- field of any type `defaultValue`, even if possibly defined, can still
be `NULL` in db
It coud be interesting to guard these standards by adding dedicated pg
constraints on each field
## TypesScript type tests
added coverage for each `settings`, `defaultValue`, and `options`
depending on the current `fieldMetadata`
Honestly I don' know if this typescript assertions test file is not
overkill, but regarding metadata staticness it might be very interesting
to have this guard
## Possible improvements
- We could type as `unknown` instead of "all" on `FieldMetadataType`
inferrance
- We still need to deprecate remaining duplicated entities such as
`Index/Field/MetadataInterface` etc not a huge refactor neither urgent
## TODO
- [ ] add dropdown to use records from outside the context
- [x] add loader for files chip
- [x] add roleId where it's necessary
- [x] Split AvatarChip in two components. One with the icon that will
call the second with leftComponent.
- [ ] Fix tests
- [x] Fix UI regression on Search
# Introduction
Following https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/13310
> After this PR merge will create a new one removing the type and
replacing it to ObjectMetadataEntity.
This is it !
# Introduction
Following `FieldMetadataInterface` deprecation in
https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/13264
As for the previous PR will rename and remove all the file in a
secondary PR to avoid conflicts and over loading this one
## Improvements
Removed optional properties from the `objectMetadataEntity` model and
added utils to retrieve test data
## Notes
By touching to `ObjectMetadataDTO` I would have expected a twenty-front
codegenerated types mutation, but it does not seem to be granular enough
to null/undefined coercion
# Introduction
Following https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/13264
> After this PR merge will create a new one removing the type and
replacing it to FieldMetadataEntity.
This is it !
# Introduction
From the moment replaced the FieldMetadataInterface definition to:
```ts
import { FieldMetadataType } from 'twenty-shared/types';
import { FieldMetadataEntity } from 'src/engine/metadata-modules/field-metadata/field-metadata.entity';
export type FieldMetadataInterface<
T extends FieldMetadataType = FieldMetadataType,
> = FieldMetadataEntity<T>;
```
After this PR merge will create a new one removing the type and
replacing it to `FieldMetadataEntity`.
Did not renamed it here to avoid conflicts on naming + type issues fixs
within the same PR
## Field metadata entity RELATION or MORPH
Relations fields cannot be null for those field metadata entity instance
anymore, but are never for the others see
`packages/twenty-server/src/engine/metadata-modules/field-metadata/types/field-metadata-entity-test.type.ts`
( introduced TypeScript tests )
## Concerns
- TS_VECTOR is the most at risk with the `generatedType` and
`asExpression` removal from interface
## What's next
- `FielMetadataInterface` removal and rename ( see introduction )
- Depcrecating `ObjectMetadataInterface`
- Refactor `FieldMetadataEntity` optional fiels to be nullable only
- TO DIG `never` occurences on settings, defaultValue etc
- Some interfaces will be replaced by the `FlatFieldMetadata` when
deprecating the current sync and comparators tools
- Added a generic HTTP request tool, allowing agents and workflows to
make HTTP requests to external APIs with configurable method, headers,
and body.
- Decoupled HTTP request workflow nodes from workflow-specific types and
factories, introducing a generic tool interface.
- Updated agent system prompts to include explicit guidance for the HTTP
request tool, including when and how to use it, and how to communicate
limitations.
### Demo
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/129bc445-a277-4a19-95ab-09f890f8f051
This PR will create the migration to be run for the morph relations
- We created a dedicated util to generate the column name and refactored
a little the code in order to have less dependencies and a clearer devX
(updated the snapshot that changed because of this)
- Moved the `createMigrationActions` to its own util as well
- Created the `MorphRelationColumnActionFactory` based on the relation
one
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
resolve#12345
The issue was caused by the delete running after the update, which led
to both the old and new options being deleted when they shared the same
value.
---------
Co-authored-by: Marie Stoppa <marie.stoppa@essec.edu>
_(AI generated)_
### Summary
This PR fixes a validation bug in the GraphQL API that prevented
relation fields from being programmatically deactivated. The validation
was incorrectly triggering a "name cannot be changed" error even when
the update payload did not include a name, making it impossible to
disable the field.
Issue #13200
### Problem
- The [updateOneField] mutation failed when trying to set `isActive:
false` on a `RELATION` field.
- The root cause was a validation check in
[FieldMetadataValidationService] that compared the incoming `name` with
the existing one. If the input `name` was `undefined`, the check
`undefined !== existingName` would incorrectly fail.
- This created a catch-22 where a field could not be deleted (because it
had to be deactivated first) and could not be deactivated (due to this
validation error).
### Solution
- The validation logic in [field-metadata-validation.service.ts] has
been updated to only check for a name change if a new name is
**explicitly provided** in the input
(`isDefined(fieldMetadataInput.name)`).
- This change correctly enforces the rule that relation field names
cannot be changed, while allowing other properties like `isActive` to be
updated without issue.
### How to Test
1. Create a custom field of type `RELATION`.
2. Using the GraphQL API, call the [updateOneField] mutation with the
field's ID and the payload `{ "isActive": false }`.
3. Verify that the mutation succeeds and the field is now inactive.
4. Call the [deleteOneField] mutation to delete the field.
5. Verify that the deletion is successful.
### Additional Changes
_to be deleted if not necessary_
- Added a new integration test
[successful-field-metadata-relation-update.integration-spec.ts] to cover
this specific use case and prevent future regressions. The existing test
for failing updates remains untouched and continues to pass.
Instead of initializing model at start time we do it at run time to be
able to swap model provider more easily.
Also introduce a third driver for openai-compatible providers, which
among other allows for local models with Ollama
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"
/>
- update publishOneServerlessFunction so it does not break the workflow
if failing
- update upgrade documentation to update `docker-compose.yml` when
mutated
Fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/13058
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)
This PR is raised to close the issue #13044
But there are some doubts that needs to be approved.
If the fields are not custom then we were saving the changes in
**standardOverrides** obj in which only three fields are
overridableFields **label, icon & description** can be updated for a
field.
You can see this in _before-update-one-field.hook.ts_ on line 85
```ts
const overridableFields = ['label', 'icon', 'description'];
```
If the field to be updated are from these three we are putting this in a
**standardOverrides** obj and passing it
However in our _field-metadata.service.ts_ file. We have **updateOne**
function inside it we have wrote a condition if **isCustom** is false
then the purpose was to build the updatableFields from the
**standardOverrides** obj that we got in **fieldMetadataInput** but
there was an error in it. As you can see below
```ts
const updatableFieldInput =
existingFieldMetadata.isCustom === false
? this.buildUpdatableStandardFieldInput(
fieldMetadataInput,
existingFieldMetadata,
)
: fieldMetadataInput;
```
However, the issue was that we were placing the entire
**standardOverrides** object inside **updatableFieldInput** again —
instead of merging its individual fields (label, icon, description)
directly into the update payload.
This PR fixes that by correctly applying the overrides into the
top-level object.
Please refer to the file changes for the full context.
But the thing i don't know.
[ ] - Is this the correct expected flow??
[ ]- Will this change break anything elsewhere?
I still have doubts on these two. Let me know if I missed something.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jagss24 <btwitsjagannat12@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
Antoine Moreaux