Secret replication #1775
Draft
Secret replication #1775
+1,919
−244
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
akhilmhdh
force-pushed
the
feat/secret-replication
branch
from
fb759c0
to
c671253
Compare
… and replication dal
akhilmhdh
force-pushed
the
feat/secret-replication
branch
from
178eb03
to
59044e7
Compare
| DynamicSecretRevocation = "dynamic-secret-revocation" | ||
| DynamicSecretRevocation = "dynamic-secret-revocation", | ||
| SecretReplication = "secret-replication", | ||
| SecretSync = "secret-sync" // parent queue to push integration sync, webhook, and secret replication |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we update all direct calls of syncIntegration to use this secretSync queue instead?
Comment on lines
+287
to
+294
| // check if user has permission to import from target path | ||
| ForbiddenError.from(permission).throwUnlessCan( | ||
| ProjectPermissionActions.Create, | ||
| subject(ProjectPermissionSub.Secrets, { | ||
| environment: secretImportDoc.importEnv.slug, | ||
| secretPath: secretImportDoc.importPath | ||
| }) | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wait is this the same with checking if the user has sufficient permission to import from the source?
Comment on lines
+12
to
+39
| const findSecrets = async (filter: { folderId: string; secrets: { id: string; version: number }[] }, tx?: Knex) => { | ||
| if (!filter.secrets) return []; | ||
|
|
||
| const sqlRawDocs = await (tx || db)(TableName.SecretVersion) | ||
| .where({ folderId: filter.folderId }) | ||
| .andWhere((bd) => { | ||
| filter.secrets.forEach((el) => { | ||
| void bd.orWhere({ | ||
| [`${TableName.SecretVersion}.secretId` as "secretId"]: el.id, | ||
| [`${TableName.SecretVersion}.version` as "version"]: el.version | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
| }) | ||
| .leftJoin<TSecretVersions>( | ||
| (tx || db)(TableName.SecretVersion) | ||
| .where("isReplicated", true) | ||
| .groupBy("secretId") | ||
| .max("version") | ||
| .select("secretId") | ||
| .as("latestVersion"), | ||
| `${TableName.SecretVersion}.secretId`, | ||
| "latestVersion.secretId" | ||
| ) | ||
| .select(db.ref("max").withSchema("latestVersion").as("latestReplicatedVersion")) | ||
| .select(selectAllTableCols(TableName.SecretVersion)); | ||
|
|
||
| return sqlRawDocs; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this fetches secret versions right? maybe let's rename the method?
|
|
||
| const replicatedSecretsGroupBySecretId = groupBy(replicatedSecrets, (i) => i.secretId); | ||
| const lock = await keyStore.acquireLock( | ||
| replicatedSecrets.map(({ id }) => id), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this have some sort of a prefix so that the lock is specific for replication purposes?
Comment on lines
+98
to
+101
| const hasJobCompleted = await keyStore.getItem( | ||
| keystoreReplicationSuccessKey(job.id as string, secretImport.id), | ||
| KeyStorePrefixes.SecretReplication | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nice! we can now add something like this to the integration sync flow
Comment on lines
+339
to
+341
| queueService.listen(QueueName.SecretReplication, "failed", (job, err) => { | ||
| logger.error(err, "Failed to replicate secret", job?.data); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how are we informing users regarding failed replication jobs?
Comment on lines
+97
to
+117
| const handleResyncSecretReplication = async () => { | ||
| if (resyncSecretReplication.isLoading) return; | ||
| try { | ||
| await resyncSecretReplication.mutateAsync({ | ||
| id, | ||
| environment, | ||
| path: secretPath, | ||
| projectId: currentWorkspace?.id || "" | ||
| }); | ||
| createNotification({ | ||
| text: "Kindly refresh the board to see changes.", | ||
| type: "success" | ||
| }); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| console.error(error); | ||
| createNotification({ | ||
| text: "Failed to resync replication", | ||
| type: "error" | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for this one, can we do the refetch behind the scenes instead of prompting to user to explicitly refresh?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description 📣
Type ✨
Tests 🛠️
# Here's some code block to paste some code snippets