## Customer-reported bug
A customer hit this when using the AI chat:
```json
{
"message": "API key 760d4822-da40-4b3f-9031-40563d7ed6c9 has no role assigned",
"extensions": {
"code": "INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR",
"userFriendlyMessage": "This API key has no role assigned."
}
}
```
Their integration authenticates via API key. Somewhere along the way,
the role bound to that API key was deleted, leaving the API key
authenticated but role-less. Any request that hits a permission check
(`getRoleIdForApiKeyId`) blows up.
## Root cause
In `RoleService.deleteManyRoles`, the pre-deletion cleanup
(`assignDefaultRoleToMembersWithRoleToDelete`) only rebinds **user
workspaces** to the workspace default role. API keys and agents pointing
at the role are ignored. Because `RoleTargetEntity.role` declares
`onDelete: 'CASCADE'`, the FK then drops the role_target rows for those
API keys / agents — but the API keys themselves stay in `api_key`, now
orphaned in `apiKeyRoleMap`.
A previous read-side workaround
([2767ddac44](https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/commit/2767ddac44) —
make the `role` ResolveField nullable) handled the API-key-details page,
but did not address the write paths (`getRoleIdForApiKeyId`).
## Fix
- Rename `assignDefaultRoleToMembersWithRoleToDelete` →
`rebindTargetsOfRoleToDeleteToDefaultRole` and extend it to rebind API
keys (via `ApiKeyRoleService.assignRoleToApiKey`) and agents (via
`AiAgentRoleService.assignRoleToAgent`) in the same step, before the
role is deleted.
- If the workspace default role doesn't satisfy `canBeAssignedToApiKeys`
/ `canBeAssignedToAgents`, the inner `assignRoleTo*` validation throws.
We catch that and rethrow as a `PermissionsException` with a
role-deletion-context message and two new codes —
`ROLE_CANNOT_BE_ASSIGNED_TO_API_KEYS` /
`ROLE_CANNOT_BE_ASSIGNED_TO_AGENTS` — so the admin sees a clear
"reassign these first" prompt rather than a confusing inner error.
## Scope / non-goals
- **Already-orphaned API keys are not auto-healed.** The customer still
needs to reassign a role to their existing orphan API key via the UI
(Settings > API Keys > [the key] > role). A separate cleanup command for
existing orphans is a follow-up.
- I did not investigate *why* the customer's session was authenticated
via API key in the AI chat — that may be their integration setup. Worth
confirming with them separately.
## Test plan
- [ ] Workspace with default role `Admin` (which has
`canBeAssignedToApiKeys: true`): create an API key with a custom role,
delete the custom role → API key is rebound to Admin, requests keep
working.
- [ ] Workspace with default role `Member` (default, has
`canBeAssignedToApiKeys: false`): create an API key with a custom role,
delete the custom role → role deletion fails with the new
`ROLE_CANNOT_BE_ASSIGNED_TO_API_KEYS` error explaining the admin must
reassign first. API key + custom role are both unchanged.
- [ ] Same two scenarios for agents (`canBeAssignedToAgents`).
- [ ] Existing user-workspace rebind behavior is unchanged.
- [ ] Role deletion with no dependent API keys / agents still works.
# Introduction
Even though this would not possible through API at the moment, from
neither API metadata or manifest ( as manifest `permissionsFlag`
declarations etc are done from within a declared role )
Prevent any app to create permissions entities over another app role
from the validation engine itself
## `isEditable`
We might wanna deprecate this column at some point from the entity it
self as now the grain would rather be `what app owns that role ?`
---------
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <223894421+github-code-quality[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
In this PR
- handle settings permission check for applications. Until then this was
unhandled and applications could not perform actions requiring settings
permissions, even if they were granted them
- fix ties to attachment, noteTarget etc:
When an object had their fields synchronized in the app, the system
fields created as a side-effect of the object creation (relations to
noteTarget, attachment, taskTarget, favorites, timelineActivities -
created with `isCustom: true`, not sure that is correct btw) were then
deleted because they are not declared in the app, and identified as
deletable because of `isCustom: true`.
Updating the logic to exclude system fields from the logic that detects
fields to delete.
I think this outline the confusion we have around isCustom, isSystem
etc.
- introduce uploadFile util in generated twenty client as it cannot be
handled by the client's query / mutation. I had to use this for my
invoicing app
**Before**
- any user with workpace_members permission was able to remove a user
from their workspace. This triggered the deletion of workspaceMember +
of userWorkspace, but did not delete the user (even if they had no
workspace left) nor the roleTarget (acts as junction between role and
userWorkspace) which was left with a userWorkspaceId pointing to
nothing. This is because roleTarget points to userWorkspaceId but the
foreign key constraint was not implemented
- any user could delete their own account. This triggered the deletion
of all their workspaceMembers, but not of their userWorkspace nor their
user nor the roleTarget --> we have orphaned userWorkspace, not
technically but product wise - a userWorkspace without a workspaceMember
does not make sense
So the problems are
- we have some roleTargets pointing to non-existing userWorkspaceId
(which caused https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/14608 )
- we have userWorkspaces that should not exist and that have no
workspaceMember counterpart
- it is not possible for a user to leave a workspace by themselves, they
can only leave all workspaces at once, except if they are being removed
from the workspace by another user
**Now**
- if a user has multiple workspaces, they are given the possibility to
leave one workspace while remaining in the others (we show two buttons:
Leave workspace and Delete account buttons). if a user has just one
workspace, they only see Delete account
- when a user leaves a workspace, we delete their workspaceMember,
userWorkspace and roleTarget. If they don't belong to any other
workspace we also soft-delete their user
- soft-deleted users get hard deleted after 30 days thanks to a cron
- we have two commands to clean the orphans roleTarget and userWorkspace
(TODO: query db to see how many must be run)
**Next**
- once the commands have been run, we can implement and introduce the
foreign key constraint on roleTarget
Fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/14608
Fixes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1262
In this PR we add the update permission check layer by
- for the graphql api: extracting columns to update from the
expressionMap
- for rest api: .save() is used so we need to add the permission layer
to .save directly. We also take advantage of this PR to filter out
non-readable fields from save response (other save returns the whole
entity) - this was planned in
https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1216
The current solution does not work with rest api depth 2 queries, but
this seem to already not work on main (for timeout reasons though, so
different). I offer to create a ticket to fix it altogether later.
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.
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>
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.`
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)
Closes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/748
In the frame of the work on permissions we
- remove all raw queries possible to use repositories instead
- forbid usage workspaceDataSource.executeRawQueries()
- restrict usage of workspaceDataSource.query() to force developers to
pass on shouldBypassPermissionChecks to use it.
---------
Co-authored-by: greptile-apps[bot] <165735046+greptile-apps[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
I encountered a bug where I was missing permissions while calling
searchResolver because the repository from
`twentyORMManager.getRepository` was missing permissions itself.
The repository was returned from the cached repositories map using a
repository key feature the roleId, the rolesVersion and
featureFlagMapVersion.
I was not able to reproduce but this error should not go unnoticed: we
always expect to find objectPermissions for every roleId in the
datasource now.
I was not able to understand what happened for now but I think throwing
the error will help keeping an eye on it
This PR attemps at improving sentry grouping and filtering by
- Using the exceptionCode as the fingerprint when the error is a
customException. For this to work in this PR we are now throwing
customExceptions instead of internalServerError deprived of their code.
They will still be converted to Internal server errors when sent back as
response
- Filtering 4xx issues where it was missing (for emailVerification
because errors were not handled, for invalid captcha and billing errors
because they are httpErrors and not graphqlErrors)
---------
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix@twenty.com>
In [a previous PR](https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/11023) I
fixed the issue where users where re-assigned the default role when
signin up using SSO.
The "fix" actually introduced another error, calling
`assignRoleToUserWorkspace` only when a user is signing up to twenty,
forgetting about the case where an existing twenty user signs up to a
different workspace. They should still be assigned the role in that
case.
To fix this and improve clarity, I moved assignRoleToUserWorkspace to
addUserToWorkspace and renamed addUserToWorkspace to
addUserToWorkspaceIfUserNotInWorkspace since this is at each sign in but
does nothing if user is already in the workspace.
I think ideally we should refactor this part to improve readability and
understandability, maybe with different flows for each case: signIn and
signUp, to twenty or to a workspace
A user should not be able to delete their account if they are the last
admin of a workspace.
It means that if a user wants to sign out of twenty, they should delete
their workspace, not their account
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!
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
Félix Malfait