Upgraded to Storybook 10. We still use `@storybook/test-runner` for
testing since it appears it'd require more work to move from Jest to
Vitest than I initially anticipated, but I completed this PR to fix
`storybook:serve:dev` - it takes time to load, but it works the way it
used to with Storybook 8.
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7afc32c6-4bcf-4b37-b83b-8d00d28dda15
- moved a few gql types to twenty shared to re-use in server
- added a new endpoint, onEventSubscription that expect a streamId to
create a connection
- two new endpoints to store queries in Redis
- updated the existing batch channel to directly use object record type
## Summary
This PR enforces the use of `@/` alias for imports instead of relative
parent imports (`../`).
## Changes
### ESLint Configuration
- Added `no-restricted-imports` pattern in `eslint.config.react.mjs` to
block `../*` imports with the message "Relative parent imports are not
allowed. Use @/ alias instead."
- Removed the non-working `import/no-relative-parent-imports` rule
(doesn't work properly in ESLint flat config)
### VS Code Settings
- Added `javascript.preferences.importModuleSpecifier: non-relative` to
`.vscode/settings.json` (TypeScript setting was already there)
### Code Fixes
- Fixed **941 relative parent imports** across **706 files** in
`packages/twenty-front`
- All `../` imports converted to use `@/` alias
## Why
- Consistent import style across the codebase
- Easier to move files without breaking imports
- Better IDE support for auto-imports
- Clearer understanding of where imports come from
Fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/16624
Original issue:
- while persisting a field (calling useUpdateOne), the response from the
backend is missing the taskTargets many to many (same for note). As we
optimistically update the cache, we lose the "Relations" in the UI
- I'm changing the behavior of useUpsertInRecordStore to accept
recordGqlFields to only update the fields we want in the record store
(this way, we are not losing the targets information in our case)
Updated the 3 hooks - activate, deactivate and discard draft
(deleteVersion) - so those updates the cache.
Removed the update listeners.
Also wrapped a few actions to unsure workflowId is not undefined when
received by useWorkflowWithCurrentVersion hook. Otherwise, useFindRecord
with by performed with skip true, disconnecting tmp from the cache and
making it miss a statuses update.
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5fc355e8-cf18-4881-855b-744eb253b79e
closes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1629
To do before requesting review :
- filter update
Migration to come in an other PR
Strat :
1/ Null transformation
- [x] Transform NULL equivalent value to NULL in field validation in
common api - pre-query - with feature flag
- [ ] Same logic in ORM (Not done, complex to handle feature flag here)
- [x] Transform NULL value to equivalent in data formatting in ORM -
post-query
2/ Migration (in other PR) for fieldMetadata not nullable with default
defaultValue (empty string, ...)
- [ ] Remove NOT NULL db constraint
- [ ] Update record value to NULL
- [ ] Update field metadata : isNullable:true
- [ ] Update uniqueIndex whereClause (also for standard uniqueIndex)
- [ ] Activate feature flag
3/ Update metadata creation
- [x] No more default default value
- [x] Update standard field nullability
- [x] Remove index default whereClause for standard field
4/ Update filter
- [x] When filtering on NULL or empty string, be sure all records are
returned (the one with NULL + the one with "")
5/ Test
- [ ] Strat. to do
Adds the field on the Show page and side panel for Morph relation
fields.
Updates
`packages/twenty-front/src/modules/object-record/record-field/ui/meta-types/input/hooks/useOpenMorphRelationOneToManyFieldInput.tsx`
to use the correct `recordPickerInstanceId` when opening the picker so
the helper consistently renders (fixes [core-team-issues
#1324](https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1324)).
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix.malfait@gmail.com>
Fixes [Dependabot Alert
85](https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/security/dependabot/85) -
prototype pollution in lodash.
Added a shared pick helper (with unit tests) in twenty-shared and
refactored front-end/server code to import { pick } from the shared
barrel instead of lodash.pick.
---------
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix.malfait@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: martmull <martmull@hotmail.fr>
Avoid fetching full steps and trigger for versions that are not the
current version. Because those won't be used anyway. Better for
performances.
Only difficulty was for the `createDraft` mutation. I needed to return
the full created version so I can store it in cache and use it as new
`currentVersion`. Otherwise the current version is considered as
incomplete for a short time, since workflow is fetched separately from
the current version.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
## Problem
With Twenty usage growing, we are facing challenges on server side to
respond to the demand. The current bottleneck we are facing is server
CPU.
While investigating CPU performances, we figured out that loading all
relation fields was the biggest issue.
### About graphql query response size
**Example:** on `People Index` Table page:
we query: `person.company` and we query **all non relation fields** on
company relation field.
`{ person { company { id, name, domainName, employees, address ... } }`
However we only need **company.id, company.name and company.domainName**
to be able to render the Company Chip in the company column (RELATION)
in the table.
`{ person { company { id, name, domainName } }`
We initially assumed that the querying all non relation fields was not
an issue because it was not adding additional load on database (which is
also partially true: if a field is containing a huge json this will add
load on postgres as data needs to be transfered)
This assumption is wrong on CPU side:
- when loading one to many relations (company.people), this quickly ads
up and we end up with response of 20kB quite quickly, even without
adding any custom field on person.
- even when loading a many to one relation, if the user is storing big
data in a given field (note.body for instance, or workflowRun.state),
this starts also being an issue.
- Worst case scenario are starting to happen: on a production workspace
with 20 active workflows. Loading workflow table while displaying
workflow runs commands (20 workflows x 60 workflowRuns x
workflowRun.state which is a big JSON) result in a response of... 125MB.
### Why is it an issue?
When yoga (graphql engine) parses a response to send it back in server
response, it's using `JSON.parse `(or stringify depending on the case).
Parsing data is CPU instensive (as you need to validate, transform) and
this is more or less `O(n)`.
This means returning 125MB is very intense on the CPU and will likely
use 100% of the CPU for ~1sec in our production servers.
NodeJs (nodeV8) is single threaded. It's able to process multiple
requests in parallel but to do that, it will cut them in "microTasks"
and process each microTasks (that can belong to different requests) one
after the other. Exactly like a single threaded CPU would allocate some
time to a process and then to the next one, etc.
This means that this big response request will actually block the other
request.
As a result, all requests are slow and our infrastructure is multi
tenant so some customers are impacting others.
This is even a bigger issue when our health checks start to fail and
containers are starting being considered as unhealthy and killed by the
orchestrator
## How to fix this
1. On Front end side, we should only query what we need. In this PR, I'm
forcing the relations to only query: `id`, `labelIdentifier`,
`imageIdentifier`
2. (later) as we are API first, we also need to do something to protect
the servers from this side too. To do that, Graphql APIs can associate a
cost to each graphql field (maybe 1 for a test fixed, 2 for a JSON
field, 10 for relations, etc...) and we can throttle based on that.
## Changes in this PR
It's mainly about refactor the tooling to generate `RecordGqlFields`
(`generateDepthOneGqlFields`). this tooling is used to generate the list
of fields we want to query. Most of the time we want to query a record
with one level of nesting.
1) Refactor to remove duplicate code => `generateDepthOne` become
`generateDepth` and can handle both `depth = 0 | 1`
2) Introduce `generateDepthRecordGqlFieldsFromFields.ts` which is the
base and can give you a list of gqlFields based on FieldMetadataItems
3) Introduce `generateDepthRecordGqlFieldsFromObject` which is a
shortcut for an object
4) Introduce `generateDepthRecordGqlFieldsFromRecords` which is the
intersection between `generateDepthRecordGqlFieldsFromObject` and a
given record (useful for cache tooling)
5) Replace all usages + introduce a hook
`useGenerateDepthRecordGqlFieldsFromObject` to ease usage
## Scope
- Refactor SingleRecordPicker to handle morphItem and match Multiple one
- fix query generation to take morph into account
Left:
- double check SingleRecordPicker in Workflows / Form
- Fix tests / stories
In this PR
- Introduction of readableFields and updatableFields in
objectMetadataItem selector to ease filtering from a developer
experience perspective ( + to help developers think to do it). In
discussion @lucasbordeau @charlesBochet
- Remove non-updatable field from CSV import process (@etiennejouan)
- QA fix / Non-readable fields should not show on show page
- QA fix / It should not be offered to create a kanban view on a
non-readable field
- QA fix / It should not be offered to create view groups on a
non-readable field
- QA fix / Rating field should have a readonly mode
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
In our Graphql schema, ids are typed as UUID.
Our FE codegen is typing it as 'any', unless we say otherwise. Fixing it
and fixing the impacts in the codebase
Moves system-level operations (auth, billing, admin) to use the
/metadata endpoint instead of /graphql.
This cleans up the endpoint separation so /graphql is purely for core
objects (Company, People, etc.) and /metadata handles all system
operations.
Part of prep work for webhook/API key core migration.
# 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>
# 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 !
## Introduction
Added coverage on the `useDeleteOneRecord` hooks, especially its
optimistic behavior feature.
Introduced a new testing tool `InMemoryTestingCacheInstance` that has
builtin very basic expectors in order to avoid future duplication when
covering others record hooks `update, create, destroy` etc etc
## Notes
Added few comments in this PR regarding some builtin functions I've
created around companies and people mocked object model and that I think
could be cool to spread and centralize within a dedicated "class
template"
Also put in light that unless I'm mistaken some tests are running on
`RecordNode` and not `RecordObject`
Took few directions on my own that as I always I would suggestion nor
remarks on them !
Let me know
## Misc
- Should we refactor `useDeleteOneRecord` tests to follow `eachTesting`
pattern ? => I feel like this is inappropriate as this hooks is already
high level, the only plus value would be less tests code despite
readability IMO
## Introduction
This refactor results from this
https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/10493 review
Introduced a new abstraction to the extinsting
`generateDepthOneRecordGqlFields` that was accepting an optional record
in arg in order to map generated `recordGqlFields` to the keys in the
record
1/ Created a dedicated util method
`generateDepthOneRecordGqlFieldsFromRecord` to do so
2/ Updated each previous `generateDepthOneRecordGqlFields` passing a
record to call new `generateDepthOneRecordGqlFieldsFromRecord`
# Introduction
The record does not appear in the table because the optimistic record
input cached does not fulfill the mutation response fields, which result
in it being considered as invalid response
close#10199
close https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/10153
# Introduction
While importing records encountering missing expected fields when
writting a fragment from apollo cache
## Updates
### 1/ `createdBy` Default value
When inserting in cache in create single or many we will now make
optimistic behavior on the createdBy value
### 2/ `createRecordInCache` dynamically create `recordGrqlFields`
When creating an entry in cache, we will now dynamically generate fields
to be written in the fragment instead of expecting all of them. As by
nature record could be partial
### 3/ Strictly typed `RecordGqlFields`
# Conclusion
closes#9927
# Introduction
At the moment when updating any record cache occurence, we will build a
fragment that will expect all of the object metadata item fields to be
provided.
Which result in the following traces: ( in the video companies aren't
fetch with companyId and other missing fields )
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/56eab7c1-8f01-45ff-8f5d-78737b788b92
By definition as we're using graphql we might not request every record's
fields each time we wanna consume them.
In this way we will now dynamically compute or expect depending on the
CRUD operation specific fields to be written in the cache, and not all
of them
Tested all optimistic and failure management use cases
## Covering cache
Added coverage only for the `deleteOne` and `deleteMany` hooks, it cover
only the record record cache and not its relations hydratation ( for the
moment )
## Why not closing #9927
Unless I'm mistaken everything done here have fixed the same logs/traces
issue for updates and deletion but not creation.
Which means we still need to investigate the mass upload from import and
prefillRecord behavior
In a nutshell: went over each `updateRecordFromCache` calls, still need
to do all `createRecordInCache` calls
related to #9927
## Conlusion
Sorry for the big PR should have ejected into a specific one for the
`MinimalRecord` refactor
Will also continue covering others hooks later in my week as for the
`deleteOne`
As always any suggestions are welcomed !
# Introduction
Avoid having multiple `isDefined` definition across our pacakges
Also avoid importing `isDefined` from `twenty-ui` which exposes a huge
barrel for a such little util function
## In a nutshell
Removed own `isDefined.ts` definition from `twenty-ui` `twenty-front`
and `twenty-server` to move it to `twenty-shared`.
Updated imports for each packages, and added explicit dependencies to
`twenty-shared` if not already in place
Related PR https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/9941
# Introduction
It seems like optimistic caching isn't working as expected for any
record relation mutation, CREATE UPDATE DELETE.
It should not have an impact on the destroy
We included a new `computeOptimisticRecordInput` that will calculate if
a relation is added or detach.
Updated the `triggerCreateRecordsOptimisticEffect` signature we should
have a look to each of its call to determine if it should be checking
cache or not
Related to #9580
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
# Introduction
At the moment the relationships are inferred from the record data
structure instead of its metadatas
We should refactor the code that computes or not the necessity to detach
a relation on a mutation
We've refactored the `isObjectRecordConnection` method to be consuming a
`relationDefintion` instead of "typeChecking" at the runtime the data
structure using zod validation schema
Related to #9580
In this PR, I'm fixing part of the impact of soft deletion on optimistic
rendering.
## Backend Vision
1) Backend endpoints will not return soft deleted records (having
deletedAt set) by default. To get the softDeleted records, we will pass
a { withSoftDelete: true } additional param in the query.
2) Record relations will NEVER contain softDeleted relations
## Backend current state
Right now, we have the following behavior:
- if the query filters do not mention deletedAt, we don't return
softDeletedRecords
- if the query filters mention deletedAt, we take it into consideration.
Meaning that if we want to have the softDeleted records in any way we
need to do { or: [ deletedAt: NULL, deletedAt: NOT_NULL] }
## Optimistic rendering strategy
1) useDestroyOne/Many is triggering destroyOptimisticEffects (previously
deleteOptimisticEffects)
2) UseDeleteOne/Many and useRestoreOne/Many are actually triggering
updateOptimisticEffects (as they only update deletedAt field) AND we
need updateOptimisticEffects to take into account deletedAt (future
withSoftDelete: true) filter.
In this PR:
- remove deprecated EMAIL, PHONE, LINK field types (except for Zapier
package as there is another work ongoing)
- remove composite currency filter on currencyCode, actor filter on name
and workspaceMember as the UX is not great yet
Fix all the broken CIs :p
This includes an ongoing effort to simplify test maintenance by having 1
unique source of truth about metadata and data mocks (that will later be
generated from a unique source of seeds: dev = demo = test)
Regressions:
- Unit line coverage: 60 > 55
- Storybook Pages branch coverage: 40 > 35
We will need to write tests to increase those coverage
- RelationFieldDisplay perf: 0.2ms to 0.22ms > We might have a
regression here
- Removed perf story about RawJSON > We will need to re-add it
Closes#5924.
Adding the "many" side of relations in the table view, and fixing some
issues (glitch in Multi record select, cache update after update).
---------
Co-authored-by: Lucas Bordeau <bordeau.lucas@gmail.com>
After discussing with @charlesBochet, several fixes are needed on
fields:
- [x] Disable Boolean field `defaultValue` edition for now (On
`defaultValue` update, newly created records are not taking the updated
`defaultValue` into account. Setting the `defaultValue` on creation is
fine.)
- [x] Disable Phone field creation for now
- [x] For the Person object, display the "Phone" field as a field of
type Phone (right now its type is Text; later we'll migrate it to a
proper Phone field).
- [x] Fix RawJson field display (displaying `[object Object]` in Record
Table cells).
- [x] In Settings/Data Model, on Relation field creation/edition,
"Object destination" select is not working properly if an object was not
manually selected (displays Companies by default but creates a relation
to another random object than Companies).
## Query depth deprecation
I'm deprecating depth parameter in our graphql query / cache tooling.
They were obsolete since we introduce the possibility to provide
RecordGqlFields
## Refactor combinedFindManyRecordHook
The hook can now take an array of operationSignatures
## Fix tasks issues
Fix optimistic rendering issue. Note that we still haven't handle
optimisticEffect on creation properly
martmull