## 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.
**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
Adding SettingsPermissionsGuard to execute permission check.
The guard is added directly in resolver, either at resolver level (ex:
roles) or resolver-endpoint level (ex: metadata). this can be challenged
!
In this PR, we are implementing the updateRole endpoint with the
following rules
1. A user can only update a member's role if they have the permission (=
the admin role)
2. Admin role can't be unassigned if there are no other admin in the
workspace
3. (For now) as members can only have one role for now, when they are
assigned a new role, they are first unassigned the other role (if any)
4. (For now) removing a member's admin role = leaving the member with no
role = calling updateRole with a null roleId
In this PR
- introducing roles module to separate roles logic (assign a Role, get a
workspace's roles etc.) from permission logic (check if a user has a
permission)
- Introduces getRoles endpoint to fetch a workspace's roles
- introduces the first permission check: getRoles in only accessible to
users with permission on ROLE setting. Implemented
validatesUserHasWorkspaceSettingPermissionOrThrow
Félix Malfait