## Summary
- Adds SSRF (Server-Side Request Forgery) protection to webhook requests
by using the same secure axios adapter already used by HTTP workflow
actions
- Prevents webhooks from making requests to private/internal IP
addresses (10.x, 192.168.x, 172.16-31.x, 169.254.x, localhost)
- Adds specific error logging when a webhook fails due to SSRF
protection
## Context
The HTTP workflow tool (`HTTP_REQUEST` action) already had SSRF
protection via `HTTP_TOOL_SAFE_MODE_ENABLED`, but webhooks were using
`HttpService` directly without this protection. This inconsistency meant
users could potentially configure webhooks to probe internal
infrastructure.
### What's protected now:
| Feature | Before | After |
|---------|--------|-------|
| HTTP Workflow Action | Protected (secure adapter) | Protected (secure
adapter) |
| Webhooks | **Unprotected** | Protected (secure adapter) |
### The secure adapter validates:
1. Protocol must be `http:` or `https:`
2. DNS resolution of hostname
3. Resolved IP must not be in private ranges
## Test plan
- [ ] Configure a webhook with an external URL (e.g.,
`https://webhook.site`) - should work
- [ ] Configure a webhook with `http://localhost:3000` - should fail
with SSRF error in audit log
- [ ] Configure a webhook with `http://10.0.0.1/test` - should fail with
SSRF error in audit log
- [ ] Configure a webhook with a domain that resolves to a private IP -
should fail
## Description
This PR adds integration tests for the Quick Lead workflow, including a
complete end-to-end test with full workflow execution.
### Key Changes
1. **Enabled SyncDriver for integration tests** - Jobs are now processed
synchronously in tests
- Modified `create-app.ts` to use `SyncDriver` instead of `BullMQ`
- Added `MessageQueueExplorer` to discover and register workflow job
handlers
- This enables complete workflow execution in integration tests
2. **Added integration tests for Quick Lead workflow**:
- Verify workflow exists and is active
- Verify workflow version has correct structure (MANUAL trigger, FORM
step, CREATE_RECORD steps)
- Test workflow triggering creates workflow run with correct initial
state
- Test stop workflow run on a running workflow
- **Full end-to-end test**: trigger → submit form → verify Company and
Person records created
### Test Coverage
The complete end-to-end test verifies:
- Workflow triggers and is in RUNNING status (waiting on FORM step)
- Form submission with test data succeeds
- Workflow completes successfully with all steps in SUCCESS status
- Company record is created with correct name and domain
- Person record is created with correct name and email
- Records are properly cleaned up after test
### How to Run Tests
```bash
npx nx run twenty-server:test:integration -- --testPathPattern="quick-lead-workflow"
```
Or with database reset:
```bash
npx nx run twenty-server:test:integration:with-db-reset -- --testPathPattern="quick-lead-workflow"
```
# Introduction
In this pull-request we introduce a service dedicated to the
twenty-standard app installation, we will later be able to re-use
existing logic to be more generic and allow any app installation.
For the moment sticking to this usage
https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1995
## Encountered issues
- We decided not to migrate deprecated fields ( also they will become
custom field for any existing workspace having them in the future )
- duplicate criteria
- wrong search index declaration
- forgotten isSearchable
- Attachement seed
- Restored standardId
## Note
For the moment we're still searching through standardId for code that
run on both existing and new workspaces.
For code running on new workspace exclusively we're searching using
universalIdentifier
We will standardize universalIdentifier usage later when we've migratred
all the existing workspaces
## Workspace creation
Will handle workspace creation the same way in another PR
Related https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/15065
## TODO
- [ ] Double all frontend hardcoded queries to not refer to deprecated
fields especially attachments
# Introduction
Creating dedicated folders and module for both `page-layout-tab` and
`page-layout-widget`
The addition diff with deletion is due to the module being added
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)
**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
# Introduction
Initially wanted to reactive the test introduced in
https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/15393, that was failing because
of direct data source access removing all views ( even seeded one )
which was making the test fail
While doing so discovered a lot of issue with the rest API:
- Rest api wasn't consuming the v2 at all
- Rest api wasn't prepared to handle v2 exceptions
- Rest api did not handled unknown exceptions ( timeout )
Refactored the cleanup of each test to follow black box pattern and
avoid test leakage
# Introduction
A while ago we migrated view from workspace to metadata
Their standard objects workspace entities declaration remained we can
now remove them
## Deprecating commands before 1.5
The view migration command from workspace to metadata was introduced in
`1.5.0`. Removing the `baseWorkspaceEntity` make this command obsolete.
If tomorrow twenty handles auto upgrade in latest and a user having an
instance in `1.3.0` starts auto-upgrading he won't be able to migrate
his views ( that's why we should not support upgrade before 1.5 anymore
here )
We will have the same use case with FavoritesFolders
# Introduction
Preparing view-filter and view-group introduction in v2 core engine
Moving view from `core-modules` to `metadata-modules`
## What happened
### Created dedicated modules for each view entity:
- ViewFieldModule
- ViewFilterModule
- ViewFilterGroupModule
- ViewGroupModule
- ViewSortModule
### Each module is now completely independent with its own:
- Controller
- Resolver
- Service
- Entity
### Created dedicated abstraction metadata module folder for:
- flat-view-field
- flat-view
### Dependencies
- Eleminated circular dep on ViewModule to all others ones
- Granular import not importing the whole viewModule anymore everywhere
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1703
## Context
To simplify the way we inject our default datasource, I've recently
removed the token injection that was confusion since we only had once
configured on the module level. Now I'm removing TypeORM service which
allows us to instantiate a new Datasource with the same parameters as
the default one, it was redundant and confusing.
## Context
View tables were missing some FK, we are also introducing delete cascade
on those tables when needed to leverage pg cascade deletion instead of
having to implement it.
Also renaming those classes with Entity suffix to follow repo
guidelines.
Created:
- Services
- Resolvers
- Controllers
- Tests for services
- Integration tests for GraphQL and Rest
Updated the Rest API playground
Added new feature flag `IS_CORE_VIEW_ENABLED`
Updated `viewFilter` `operand` and `view` `type` to be enums rather than
strings and generated migration file.
Closes https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1259
---------
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix.malfait@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charles@twenty.com>
In this PR:
- Remove deactivated objects from ActivityTargetInlineCell record picker
- Prevent users to deactivate createdAt, updatedAt, deletedAt fields on
any objects
Still left:
- write unit tests on the assert utils
- write integration tests on field metadata service
- prevent users to deactivate createdAt, updatedAt, deletedAt on FE
# 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
This PR contains several SNAPSHOT files explaining big +
While refactoring the Object Model settings page in
https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/10653, encountered a critical
issue when submitting either one or both names with `""` empty string
hard corrupting a workspace.
This motivate this PR reviewing server side validation
I feel like we could share zod schema between front and back
## Refactored server validation
What to expect from Names:
- Plural and singular have to be different ( case insensitive and
trimmed check )
- Contains only a-z A-Z and 0-9
- Follows camelCase
- Is not empty => Is not too short ( 1 )
- Is not too long ( 63 )
- Is case insensitive( fooBar and fOoBar now rejected )
What to expect from Labels:
- Plural and singular have to be different ( case insensitive and
trimmed check )
- Is not empty => Is not too short ( 1 )
- Is not too long ( 63 )
- Is case insensitive ( fooBar and fOoBar now rejected )
close https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/issues/10694
## Creation integrations tests
Created new integrations tests, following
[EachTesting](https://jestjs.io/docs/api#testeachtablename-fn-timeout)
pattern and uses snapshot to assert errors message. These tests cover
several failing use cases and started to implement ones for the happy
path but object metadata item deletion is currently broken unless I'm
mistaken @Weiko is on it
## Notes
- [ ] As we've added new validation rules towards names and labels we
should scan db in order to standardize existing values using either a
migration command or manual check
- [ ] Will review in an other PR the update path, adding integrations
tests and so on
Solves [ https://github.com/twentyhq/private-issues/issues/214 ]
**TLDR**
Add unit and integration tests to Billing. First approach to run jest
integration tests directly from VSCode.
**In order to run the unit tests:**
Run unit test using the CLI or with the jest extension directly from
VSCode.
**In order to run the integration tests:**
Ensure that your database has the billingTables. If that's not the case,
migrate the database with IS_BILLING_ENABLED set to true:
` npx nx run twenty-server:test:integration
test/integration/billing/suites/billing-controller.integration-spec.ts`
**Doing:**
- Unit test on transformSubscriptionEventToSubscriptionItem
- More tests cases in billingController integration tests.
---------
Co-authored-by: Félix Malfait <felix.malfait@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Weiko <corentin@twenty.com>
Co-authored-by: Charles Bochet <charlesBochet@users.noreply.github.com>
