feat: tenanted peers #3352

oana-lolea · 2025-03-20T13:09:07Z

Added tenantId to peers.

Changes proposed in this pull request

Added tenantId to peers
Updated tests

Context

Fixes #3129

Checklist

Related issues linked using fixes #number
Tests added/updated
Make sure that all checks pass
Bruno collection updated (if necessary)
Documentation issue created with user-docs label (if necessary)
OpenAPI specs updated (if necessary)

packages/backend/src/payment-method/ilp/peer/service.ts

packages/backend/src/graphql/resolvers/liquidity.ts

packages/backend/src/graphql/resolvers/peer.ts

packages/backend/src/payment-method/ilp/auto-peering/service.ts

packages/backend/src/payment-method/ilp/peer/service.ts

njlie · 2025-03-24T21:59:43Z

packages/backend/src/graphql/resolvers/peer.ts

      args.assetId
    )
    return peer ? peerToGraphql(peer) : null
  }

-export const createPeer: MutationResolvers<ApolloContext>['createPeer'] =
+export const createPeer: MutationResolvers<ForTenantIdContext>['createPeer'] =


The ForTenantIdContext does not seem to be leveraged for this resolver. An assertion for ctx.forTenantId being defined should be used in resolvers using that context in order to proceed.

Perhaps the middleware that sets ctx.forTenantId could be modified to try to retrieve the input tenantId from the input asset, or there could be a more bespoke check that could be performed in this resolver instead.

Yes, we can use TenantedApolloContext here, and then, pass ctx.isOperator ? undefined : ctx.tenant.id as the tenantId into the create.
This will ensure a non-operator tenant must own the asset its trying to create the peer with and at the same time, lets the operator create peers with any assetId (ie the operator can create peers for any tenant)

njlie · 2025-03-24T22:08:56Z

packages/backend/src/graphql/schema.graphql

@@ -747,6 +747,8 @@ type Peer implements Model {
  liquidity: UInt64
  "The date and time when the peer was created."
  createdAt: String!
+  "Unique identifier of the tenant associated with the peer."
+  tenantId: ID!


~~I think tenantId still needs to be added to the CreatePeerInput, so that the CreatePeer resolver can leverage the ForTenantId context.~~

edit: scratch that, I see that the tenant id of a created peer is determined by the tenant of the asset that is in the input.

mkurapov · 2025-03-25T10:49:54Z

packages/backend/src/payment-method/ilp/auto-peering/service.ts

@@ -127,8 +127,7 @@ async function initiatePeeringRequest(
        authToken: outgoingHttpToken,
        endpoint: peeringDetailsOrError.ilpConnectorUrl
      }
-    },
-    tenantId: args.tenantId


We should keep this one here (since the Rafiki that is initiating the peering request can create the peer for a known tenant), and remove the tenantId on L109. Then, in the acceptPeeringRequest function (called for the Rafiki instance that's receiving the peering request), we can use deps.config.operatorTenantId when creating the peer.

mkurapov · 2025-03-25T10:53:41Z

packages/backend/src/graphql/resolvers/peer.ts

  parent,
  args,
  ctx
 ): Promise<ResolversTypes['PeersConnection']> => {
  const peerService = await ctx.container.use('peerService')
  const { sortOrder, ...pagination } = args
+  const tenantId = ctx.isOperator ? undefined : ctx.tenant.id


We can add tenantId to the peers query in the GraphQL schema, such that the operator can filter peers for a specific tenant. Then, we can do:

Suggested change

const tenantId = ctx.isOperator ? undefined : ctx.tenant.id

const tenantId = ctx.isOperator ? tenantId : ctx.tenant.id

mkurapov · 2025-03-25T10:55:57Z

packages/backend/src/payment-method/ilp/auto-peering/routes.ts

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ interface PeeringRequestArgs {
  httpToken: string
  maxPacketAmount?: number
  name?: string
+  tenantId: string


Suggested change

tenantId: string

since we won't be sending it over in the peering request (from this comment)

mkurapov · 2025-03-25T10:59:34Z

packages/backend/src/payment-method/ilp/peer/service.ts

@@ -134,6 +142,11 @@ async function createPeer(
    return PeerError.InvalidHTTPEndpoint
  }

+  const asset = await deps.assetService.get(options.assetId)


Suggested change

const asset = await deps.assetService.get(options.assetId)

const asset = await deps.assetService.get(options.assetId, options.tenantId)

so we know that the peer gets created for the correct tenant

sanducb

LGTM 👍

mkurapov

Final few things!

mkurapov · 2025-03-31T10:58:21Z

packages/backend/src/graphql/resolvers/peer.ts

      args.assetId
    )
    return peer ? peerToGraphql(peer) : null
  }

-export const createPeer: MutationResolvers<ApolloContext>['createPeer'] =
+export const createPeer: MutationResolvers<ForTenantIdContext>['createPeer'] =


Yes, we can use TenantedApolloContext here, and then, pass ctx.isOperator ? undefined : ctx.tenant.id as the tenantId into the create.
This will ensure a non-operator tenant must own the asset its trying to create the peer with and at the same time, lets the operator create peers with any assetId (ie the operator can create peers for any tenant)

packages/backend/src/graphql/resolvers/peer.ts

mkurapov · 2025-03-31T11:38:33Z

packages/backend/src/graphql/resolvers/liquidity.ts

@@ -177,7 +178,7 @@ export const createPeerLiquidityWithdrawal: MutationResolvers<ApolloContext>['cr
      })
    }
    const peerService = await ctx.container.use('peerService')
-    const peer = await peerService.get(peerId)
+    const peer = await peerService.get(peerId, ctx.tenant.id)


Suggested change

const peer = await peerService.get(peerId, ctx.tenant.id)

const peer = await peerService.get(peerId, ctx.isOperator ? undefined : ctx.tenant.id)

so the operator can create liquidity withdrawals for any peer

mkurapov · 2025-03-31T11:39:35Z

packages/backend/src/graphql/resolvers/liquidity.ts

@@ -100,7 +100,8 @@ export const depositPeerLiquidity: MutationResolvers<ApolloContext>['depositPeer
    const peerOrError = await peerService.depositLiquidity({
      transferId: args.input.id,
      peerId: args.input.peerId,
-      amount: args.input.amount
+      amount: args.input.amount,
+      tenantId: ctx.tenant.id


Suggested change

tenantId: ctx.tenant.id

tenantId: ctx.isOperator ? undefined : ctx.tenant.id

so the operator can create liquidity deposits for any peer

… peer liquidity withdrawal

mkurapov · 2025-04-01T10:07:30Z

packages/backend/src/payment-method/ilp/peer/service.ts

 ): Promise<Peer | undefined> {
-  const peer = await Peer.query(deps.knex).findById(id)
+  let query = Peer.query(deps.knex)


We should add a test for this: "cannot get peer with incorrect tenantId"

mkurapov · 2025-04-01T10:10:18Z

packages/backend/src/payment-method/ilp/peer/service.ts

+  const asset = await deps.assetService.get(options.assetId, options.tenantId)
+  if (!asset) {
+    return PeerError.UnknownAsset
+  }


We should add a test for this: "cannot create peer with incorrect tenantId"

feat: Added tenantId to peers

cc48410

github-actions bot added type: tests Testing related pkg: backend Changes in the backend package. pkg: frontend Changes in the frontend package. type: source Changes business logic pkg: mock-ase pkg: mock-account-service-lib labels Mar 20, 2025

oana-lolea requested review from koekiebox, BlairCurrey, mkurapov, golobitch, sanducb, njlie and cozminu March 20, 2025 13:17

oana-lolea marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2025 13:18

mkurapov reviewed Mar 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

sanducb reviewed Mar 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

packages/backend/src/payment-method/ilp/peer/service.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

oana-lolea added 2 commits March 24, 2025 20:08

Added tenantId to getPage, updated contexts

ef6c386

Removed unused imports + updated some tests

ebe587a

njlie reviewed Mar 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

mkurapov reviewed Mar 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

Changes following PR comments

13311f5

oana-lolea requested review from mkurapov and njlie March 28, 2025 12:17

golobitch linked an issue Mar 30, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request

[Multi-Tenant] Tenanted Peers #3129

Closed

5 tasks

sanducb approved these changes Mar 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

mkurapov reviewed Mar 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

Fixes on resolvers: create and get peer, deposit liquidity and create…

c749ed8

… peer liquidity withdrawal

oana-lolea requested a review from mkurapov April 1, 2025 07:50

mkurapov reviewed Apr 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

Added missing tests for create and get peer

38ae7cb

mkurapov approved these changes Apr 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

oana-lolea merged commit ab156ad into 2893/multi-tenancy-v1 Apr 1, 2025
25 of 37 checks passed

oana-lolea deleted the feature/3129-tenanted-peers branch April 1, 2025 13:18

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: tenanted peers #3352

feat: tenanted peers #3352

oana-lolea commented Mar 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

njlie Mar 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mkurapov Mar 31, 2025

njlie Mar 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mkurapov Mar 25, 2025

mkurapov Mar 25, 2025

mkurapov Mar 25, 2025

mkurapov Mar 25, 2025

sanducb left a comment

mkurapov left a comment

mkurapov Mar 31, 2025

mkurapov Mar 31, 2025

mkurapov Mar 31, 2025

mkurapov Apr 1, 2025

mkurapov Apr 1, 2025

	const tenantId = ctx.isOperator ? undefined : ctx.tenant.id
	const tenantId = ctx.isOperator ? tenantId : ctx.tenant.id

	const asset = await deps.assetService.get(options.assetId)
	const asset = await deps.assetService.get(options.assetId, options.tenantId)

	const peer = await peerService.get(peerId, ctx.tenant.id)
	const peer = await peerService.get(peerId, ctx.isOperator ? undefined : ctx.tenant.id)

	tenantId: ctx.tenant.id
	tenantId: ctx.isOperator ? undefined : ctx.tenant.id

feat: tenanted peers #3352

feat: tenanted peers #3352

Conversation

oana-lolea commented Mar 20, 2025 • edited Loading

Changes proposed in this pull request

Context

Checklist

njlie Mar 24, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

njlie Mar 24, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sanducb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mkurapov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

oana-lolea commented Mar 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

njlie Mar 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

njlie Mar 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading