Space Application Supporter can access specific app GET endpoints

[MerricdeLauney]

Issue

Allow space application supporter to access specific app endpoints.

Context

We are introducing a new role and we want to make sure it has the right access.

Expected result

A space application support should be able access the following endpoints:

• GET /v3/apps/:guid
• GET /v3/apps
• GET /v3/apps/:guid/builds
• GET /v3/apps/:guid/droplets/current
• GET /v3/apps/:guid/relationships/current_droplet
• GET /v3/apps/:guid/permissions

Acceptance

A space application supporter would see the same info as a space developer assigned to the same space for these and only these endpoints.

Documentation

When I browse to any of these endpoints on v3 docs I can see the Space Application Supporter role in the list of permitted roles with an indication that this role is not fully implemented and the permissions will be changing.

[monamohebbi]

For GET /v3/apps/:guid/permissions we are responding with the basic response:

{
  "read_basic_data": true,
  "read_sensitive_data": false
}

[monamohebbi]

Running into some questions around the env endpoints:

GET /v3/apps/:guid/env is apparently protected behind this endpoint, so we would have to create a new feature flag in addition to unblocking the running_env_json, staging_env_json, and environment_variables fields. Given the information in these fields can be discovered through different endpoints, is it worth introducing a new flag and creating a bulkier API?

cc @piyalibanerjee

EDIT: env vars will be moved to a separate issue and only partially unblocked

[MerricdeLauney]

@ctlong and I aren't finding the requested documentation changes despite this issue being closed. Was this missed in the PR?

[sweinstein22]

Good catch, thanks @MerricdeLauney ! Looks like we did miss it, as it's just docs changes I've added them in this commit. and confirmed that the changes load correctly when running the docs locally. We'll do a second round of acceptance just on the docs once the changes get through the pipeline before closing out the issue again.

[sweinstein22]

The commit made it through the pipeline and I've double checked that the role is indicated on the endpoints included in this issue