Should be merged once https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/16206 has
been released + command run to prod
In this PR
- Remove usage of viewGroup.fieldMetadataId, both in BE and FE states.
- But we still need to properly populate it until we fully remove
viewGroup.fieldMetadataId from db and ORM entity (upcoming 3rd PR out of
3). fieldMetadataId was removed from CoreViewGroup type and
CreateViewGroupInput and is determined BE-side based on the associated
view's mainGroupByFieldMetadataId. **I expect this means a downtime on
viewGroup creation, until both FE and BE are deployed and cache is
flushed.** This seems acceptable to me as it only regards viewGroup
creation.
- this information is replaced by view.mainGroupByFieldMetadataID
- Handle view group creation, update and deletion in the BE as a
side-effect of a view creation, update or deletion. Optimistic effects
are still used
- Add validation at view creation or update regarding
mainGroupByFieldMetadata
Left to do in 3rd PR
- Remove viewGroup.fieldMetadataId from db and ORM entity
- Restore feature allowing to update an existing grouped view's group by
field (already OK on BE side but need to rebuild FE optimistic)
In this PR (1/3)
- introduce view.mainGroupByFieldMetadataId as the new reference
determining which fieldMetadataId is used in a grouped view, in order to
deprecate viewGroup.fieldMetadataId which creates inconsistencies.
view.mainGroupByFieldMetadataId is now filled at every view creation,
though not in use yet.
- Introduce a command to backfill view.mainGroupByFieldMetadataId for
existing views + delete all viewGroup.fieldMetadataId with a
fieldMetadataId that is not view.mainGroupByFieldMetadataId. (It should
concern 37 active workspaces)
- Temporarily disable the option to change a grouped view's
fieldMetadataId as for now it creates inconsistencies. This feature can
be reintroduced when we have done the full migration.
In a next PR
- (2/3) use view.mainGroupByFieldMetadataId instead of
viewGroup.fieldMetadataId. In FE we may keep viewGroup.fieldMetadataId
as a state (TBD). View groups will now be created / deleted as a side
effect of view's mainGroupByFieldMetadataId update.
- (3/3) remove viewGroup.fieldMetadataId
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
## Overview
This PR strengthens our permission system by introducing more granular
role-based access control across the platform.
## Changes
### New Permissions Added
- **Applications** - Control who can install and manage applications
- **Layouts** - Control who can customize page layouts and UI structure
- **AI** - Control access to AI features and agents
- **Upload File** - Separate permission for file uploads
- **Download File** - Separate permission for file downloads (frontend
visibility)
### Security Enhancements
- Implemented whitelist-based validation for workspace field updates
- Added explicit permission guards to core entity resolvers
- Enhanced ESLint rule to enforce permission checks on all mutations
- Created `CustomPermissionGuard` and `NoPermissionGuard` for better
code documentation
### Affected Components
- Core entity resolvers: webhooks, files, domains, applications,
layouts, postgres credentials
- Workspace update mutations now use whitelist validation
- Settings UI updated with new permission controls
### Developer Experience
- ESLint now catches missing permission guards during development
- Explicit guard markers make permission requirements clear in code
review
- Comprehensive test coverage for new permission logic
## Testing
- ✅ All TypeScript type checks pass
- ✅ ESLint validation passes
- ✅ New permission guards properly enforced
- ✅ Frontend UI displays new permissions correctly
## Migration Notes
Existing workspaces will need to assign the new permissions to roles as
needed. By default, all new permissions are set to `false` for non-admin
roles.
# Introduction
When creating a view with v2 flag activated in production result in race
condition due to request being slow and //.
That's why we're introducing a batch create on view field here
closing https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1836
## In v2
- batch create view field endpoint is available
- frontend will target the new endpoint
## In v1
- batch create view field endpoint is not available
- frontend will stick to old fake batch view field creation loop
## Polish
- use persist view field is quite verbose as contains two data model we
could aim to create an update many view fields in order to standardize
new pattern
# Introduction
Adding view-group to core engine v2
Following https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/15010 ( same pattern )
## What's done
- Created flat-view-group
- flat view group runner
- flat view group builder
- create view group service v2 and input transpilers
- refactor the existing view group resolver to fix standard (
BREAKING_CHANGE on graphql api update especially ) REST stays the same
- refactored the front to consume the mutations autogenerated
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1665
# Introduction
Migrating `viewFilter` to v2 in order to migrate later the field update
side effect on view to v2 too
## What's done
- Created flat-view-filter
- flat view filter runner
- flat view filter builder
- create view filter service v2 and input transpilers
- refactor the existing view filter resolver to fix standard (
BREAKING_CHANGE on graphql api update especially ) REST stays the same
- refactored the front to consume the mutations autogenerated
## New generic tools
### Compare two flat entity
Introducing a new util to compare two flat entity, it's strictly typed
and will be added to the generic builder in a following PR
This will ease flat entity addition as won't required to create a
specific abstraction for comparison
Generic builder will expect specific constant: properties to compare and
properties to stringify
### Transform flat entity for comparison
Forked and refactor the initial existing method for flat entity business
scope and type safety
## Coverage
Migrated existing integration tests to fit new contract API
This PR does not add strong coverage on validation exceptions
Deadlines are too short
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1666
## Context
We are experiencing bad performance on Twenty. One of the root cause
hypothesis is that computing `currentUser.currentWorkspace.views` is CPU
consuming. Without views, the GetCurrentUser response is ~1000 lines.
With its ~10000 lines.
As graphql is going through all fields recursively this can be quite
heavy on CPU. We had a similar issues on ObjectMetadataItems 2 years ago
and came with storing the response in redis.
Note: I thought there was also a cache in RAM but this is not the case,
so to invalidate the cache we can just empty redis.
## How
- Extract getting all views from GetCurrentUser and update frontend to
perform both queries
- Add views to cached graphql operations
- invalidate the cache manually on view or related core entities update
/ create / delete / destroy
## Tests
I have tested a lot on v1
## Introduction
### Twenty-sever
Standardizing resolver input and transpilation models + return type on
destroy and delete
~~Finally~~ Did plug everything under a feature flag and add coverage
Next will do same for the view resolver and service v2
### Twenty-front
Refactored view field service in order to use codegenerated strictly
typed mutations and adapt to new api contract
Parallel code path to read and write core views when
IS_CORE_VIEW_ENABLED.
Migrated view key to an enum.
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: Lucas Bordeau <bordeau.lucas@gmail.com>
Abdul Rahman