fix: Cannot use an API Key to add users to a group

[matthewelwell]

Changes

Fixes #4361

How did you test this code?

Added a new test for the specific failure case and also updated the test module to use admin_client_new in all tests and resolved any other similar issues.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

3 Skipped Deployments

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
docs	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)			Jul 23, 2024 2:47pm
flagsmith-frontend-preview	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)			Jul 23, 2024 2:47pm
flagsmith-frontend-staging	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Jul 23, 2024 2:47pm

[sentry-io]

🔍 Existing Issues For Review

Your pull request is modifying functions with the following pre-existing issues:

📄 File: api/users/views.py

Function	Unhandled Issue
add_users	AttributeError: 'APIKeyUser' object has no attribute 'is_group_admin' /api/v1/organisations/{organisation_pk}/g... Event Count: 6
add_users	TypeError: sequence item 0: expected str instance, FFAdminUser found /api/v1/organisations/{organisation_pk}/gr... Event Count: 3

---

_{Did you find this useful? React with a 👍 or 👎}

[github-actions]

Docker builds report

Image	Build Status	Security report
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-api-test:pr-4362	Finished ✅	Skipped
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-e2e:pr-4362	Finished ✅	Skipped
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-frontend:pr-4362	Finished ✅	Results ✅
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-api:pr-4362	Finished ✅	Results ✅
ghcr.io/flagsmith/flagsmith-private-cloud:pr-4362	Finished ✅	Results ✅

[github-actions]

Uffizzi Preview deployment-54402 was deleted.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.79%. Comparing base (b31bd8c) to head (71de795).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4362   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.79%   96.79%           
=======================================
  Files        1162     1162           
  Lines       38239    38248    +9     
=======================================
+ Hits        37012    37021    +9     
  Misses       1227     1227           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[khvn26]

Can we accommodate edge_api.identities.tasks.call_environment_webhook_for_feature_state_change and fix #4370 as part of this PR as well?

[matthewelwell]

Can we accommodate edge_api.identities.tasks.call_environment_webhook_for_feature_state_change and fix #4370 as part of this PR as well?

Well, strictly, that would involve changing the branch name and recreating the PR, etc. - I can do it, but at that point, we might as well just create a new PR?

[khvn26]

Well, strictly, that would involve changing the branch name and recreating the PR, etc

Or just changing the PR description to "Fixes #4361, #4370"?

[matthewelwell]

Well, strictly, that would involve changing the branch name and recreating the PR, etc

Or just changing the PR description to "Fixes #4361, #4370"?

Hence 'strictly'. It's ugly to not change the branch name, but I can. I guess the branch name doesn't live anywhere post merge so it's fine. I'll just do it, yep.

[matthewelwell]

Actually @khvn26, sorry, but no, #4370 is actually quite a bit more involved as it breaks the webhook schema. If you look here, we're currently always sending the email of the user that made the change. We will no longer have that option available to us.

Based on this, I'd say it definitely deserves its own PR.