@oneuptime/common 12.0.17 → 12.0.19

package/Tests/Server/Services/AdminRuleEditGuards.test.ts

@@ -11,8 +11,10 @@ import UserNotificationRuleService, {
 } from "../../../Server/Services/UserNotificationRuleService";
 import UserOnCallLogService from "../../../Server/Services/UserOnCallLogService";
 import UserOnCallLogTimelineService from "../../../Server/Services/UserOnCallLogTimelineService";
+import UserMicrosoftTeamsService from "../../../Server/Services/UserMicrosoftTeamsService";
 import UserPushService from "../../../Server/Services/UserPushService";
 import UserService from "../../../Server/Services/UserService";
+import UserSlackService from "../../../Server/Services/UserSlackService";
 import UserSmsService from "../../../Server/Services/UserSmsService";
 import UserTelegramService from "../../../Server/Services/UserTelegramService";
 import UserWebhookService from "../../../Server/Services/UserWebhookService";
@@ -74,7 +76,7 @@ import { afterEach, beforeEach, describe, expect, test } from "@jest/globals";
  *       a user id is global.
  *   R3  a rule's method FK must point at a method row owned by the rule's own
  *       user - on create, on update, through the FK column and through the
- *       relation slot, on every one of the seven channels, and on update with
+ *       relation slot, on every one of the nine channels, and on update with
  *       the owner re-read from the DATABASE because the body is written by the
  *       party under suspicion.
  *   R6  the audit line and the owner's warning email are keyed on the actor the
@@ -135,14 +137,14 @@ const ADMIN_EMAIL: string = "ada.admin@example.test";
 const VICTIM_EMAIL: string = "vic.responder@example.test";
 
 /*
- * The seven channels, each named by the FK column that carries it, the relation
+ * The nine channels, each named by the FK column that carries it, the relation
  * slot that is the same write spelled differently, the service the guard has to
  * consult for that channel's owner, and the word that must appear in the
  * refusal so an operator can tell WHICH method was wrong.
  *
  * Everything about method ownership is driven off this table on purpose. The
- * one realistic way for the guard to be wrong is to cover six channels and
- * forget the seventh, and an attacker choosing between seven doors will always
+ * one realistic way for the guard to be wrong is to cover eight channels and
+ * forget the ninth, and an attacker choosing between nine doors will always
  * choose the unlocked one - so a per-channel loop is the only shape of test
  * that means anything here.
  */
@@ -188,6 +190,18 @@ const CHANNELS: Array<ChannelFixture> = [
     label: "Telegram",
     service: UserTelegramService as unknown as MethodServiceLike,
   },
+  {
+    idColumn: "userSlackId",
+    relationColumn: "userSlack",
+    label: "Slack",
+    service: UserSlackService as unknown as MethodServiceLike,
+  },
+  {
+    idColumn: "userMicrosoftTeamsId",
+    relationColumn: "userMicrosoftTeams",
+    label: "Microsoft Teams",
+    service: UserMicrosoftTeamsService as unknown as MethodServiceLike,
+  },
   {
     idColumn: "userPushId",
     relationColumn: "userPush",
@@ -860,7 +874,7 @@ describe("Administrative notification rule edit guards", () => {
   describe("R3 on create: a rule's method must belong to the rule's user", () => {
     test("the guard covers exactly the notification method columns the model declares", () => {
       /*
-       * Derived from the model rather than restated, so that an eighth channel
+       * Derived from the model rather than restated, so that a tenth channel
        * added to UserNotificationRule and forgotten in the guard fails HERE,
        * loudly, instead of quietly becoming the one unlocked door.
        */
@@ -873,7 +887,7 @@ describe("Administrative notification rule edit guards", () => {
       });
 
       // If the derivation itself ever breaks, fail rather than pass vacuously.
-      expect(columnsOnModel).toHaveLength(7);
+      expect(columnsOnModel).toHaveLength(9);
 
       expect(
         [
@@ -1783,7 +1797,7 @@ describe("Administrative notification rule edit guards", () => {
           }),
         ),
       ).rejects.toThrow(
-        "Call, SMS, WhatsApp, Telegram, Webhook, Email, or Push notification is required",
+        "Call, SMS, WhatsApp, Telegram, Slack, Microsoft Teams, Webhook, Email, or Push notification is required",
       );
     });
 
@@ -1995,7 +2009,7 @@ describe("Administrative notification rule edit guards", () => {
           updatePayload({ patch: { userEmailId: null } }),
         ),
       ).rejects.toThrow(
-        "Call, SMS, WhatsApp, Telegram, Webhook, Email, or Push notification is required",
+        "Call, SMS, WhatsApp, Telegram, Slack, Microsoft Teams, Webhook, Email, or Push notification is required",
       );
     });
 

package/Tests/Server/Services/BillingService.test.ts

@@ -882,6 +882,9 @@ describe("BillingService", () => {
         expect(service.hasMeteredPlanPriceId(ProductType.SessionReplay)).toBe(
           true,
         );
+        expect(service.hasMeteredPlanPriceId(ProductType.SecurityEvents)).toBe(
+          true,
+        );
       });
 
       it("should return false for a product type with no Stripe price", () => {
@@ -901,6 +904,23 @@ describe("BillingService", () => {
         expect(LogDataIngestMeteredPlan.hasPriceId()).toBe(true);
         expect(SessionReplayDataIngestMeteredPlan.hasPriceId()).toBe(true);
       });
+
+      /*
+       * Security Events shipped its ingest, metering and staging without a
+       * Stripe price, so usage accrued in TelemetryUsageBilling and was never
+       * invoiced - silently, because the callers treat a missing price as
+       * "skip this plan". Enumerate the enum rather than listing types by
+       * hand so the next pillar added cannot repeat that.
+       */
+      it("should have a Stripe price for every ProductType", () => {
+        const unpriced: Array<ProductType> = Object.values(ProductType).filter(
+          (productType: ProductType) => {
+            return !service.hasMeteredPlanPriceId(productType);
+          },
+        );
+
+        expect(unpriced).toEqual([]);
+      });
     });
 
     describe("isPromoCodeValid", () => {

package/Tests/Server/Services/DeliverNotificationForRuleExtraction.test.ts

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ import { describe, expect, test, beforeEach, afterEach } from "@jest/globals";
  * with a UserNotificationRule it assembled in memory and never saved: there is
  * no rule row to claim and no id to look up, so the first half is meaningless
  * to it while the second half is exactly what it needs. That makes the SEAM
- * between the two halves — not the seven channel blocks, which
+ * between the two halves — not the nine channel blocks, which
  * NotificationChannelEventCoverage.test.ts owns — the thing worth pinning, and
  * this file pins five properties of it:
  *
@@ -731,7 +731,7 @@ describe("UserNotificationRuleService - the deliverNotificationForRule extractio
        * the loaded relation's userId against the rule's, and it can only report
        * a mismatch it can SEE - an unselected column arrives as `undefined` and
        * is deliberately read as "no evidence", so dropping any one of these
-       * seven silently disables the backstop for that channel.
+       * nine silently disables the backstop for that channel.
        *
        * Kept as an exact-shape assertion on purpose. This test caught the
        * column being added, which is the whole argument for not relaxing it
@@ -762,6 +762,18 @@ describe("UserNotificationRuleService - the deliverNotificationForRule extractio
           isVerified: true,
           userId: true,
         },
+        userSlack: {
+          slackUserId: true,
+          slackUserName: true,
+          isVerified: true,
+          userId: true,
+        },
+        userMicrosoftTeams: {
+          microsoftTeamsUserId: true,
+          microsoftTeamsUserName: true,
+          isVerified: true,
+          userId: true,
+        },
         userWebhook: {
           webhookUrl: true,
           name: true,
@@ -788,6 +800,8 @@ describe("UserNotificationRuleService - the deliverNotificationForRule extractio
       ["userSms"],
       ["userWhatsApp"],
       ["userTelegram"],
+      ["userSlack"],
+      ["userMicrosoftTeams"],
       ["userEmail"],
       ["userPush"],
     ])(
@@ -806,6 +820,8 @@ describe("UserNotificationRuleService - the deliverNotificationForRule extractio
       ["userSms", "phone"],
       ["userWhatsApp", "phone"],
       ["userTelegram", "telegramChatId"],
+      ["userSlack", "slackUserId"],
+      ["userMicrosoftTeams", "microsoftTeamsUserId"],
       ["userEmail", "email"],
       ["userPush", "deviceToken"],
     ])(

package/Tests/Server/Services/EpisodeRuleSeverityRepair.test.ts

@@ -161,13 +161,15 @@ const TELEGRAM_METHOD_ID: ObjectID = new ObjectID(
   "ccccccc2-cccc-4ccc-8ccc-cccccccccccc",
 );
 
-/* The seven FK columns a rule can name a notification method through. */
+/* The nine FK columns a rule can name a notification method through. */
 type MethodColumn =
   | "userEmailId"
   | "userSmsId"
   | "userCallId"
   | "userWhatsAppId"
   | "userTelegramId"
+  | "userSlackId"
+  | "userMicrosoftTeamsId"
   | "userWebhookId"
   | "userPushId";
 
@@ -177,6 +179,8 @@ const ALL_METHOD_COLUMNS: Array<MethodColumn> = [
   "userCallId",
   "userWhatsAppId",
   "userTelegramId",
+  "userSlackId",
+  "userMicrosoftTeamsId",
   "userWebhookId",
   "userPushId",
 ];