[Feature Request]: Add sharing options for a notebook server

[bdattoma]

Feature description

As of now, a userX can access the notebook server started from a userY by using userX's credentials and without informing/warning userY.
I think it would be good to have for a user to be able to configure the access policy to their own servers. For example, userX wants to be the only one accessing their servers until they decide to share with others. (I may understand if ODH Admins can still have access to the private servers).

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Anything else?

No response

[samuelvl]

This will be default behavior after we merge this PR #358

• User X will only have access to server X
• User Y will only have access to server Y
• ODH Admins will have access to server X and Y

[bdattoma]

@samuelvl what about the ability of sharing access? Would it make sense?

[andrewballantyne]

I do not believe Lucas' work will solve this @samuelvl -- I think @bdattoma is asking for something related to the "Project" work found in Kyle's mocks here: https://marvelapp.com/prototype/afa716d/screen/87997400

[andrewballantyne]

I do not believe this is part of KFNBC

[samuelvl]

@andrewballantyne @bdattoma Correct, sharing notebooks between users is part of the future Project initiative but it's not in KFNBC scope

[andrewballantyne]

I've removed it from the project then... this is something we need to address, but not part of the KFNBC work.

[bdattoma]

cool, thanks for the clarifications @andrewballantyne @samuelvl

[andrewballantyne]

We leaned on k8s permissions -- if you have access to the project, you'll likely have access to the workbench. No other feature level of permissions is expected here. Closing this issue as I think we achieved what we were after. If not, we can readdress this with fresh eyes.

[bdattoma]

@andrewballantyne Okay thanks.

No other feature level of permissions is expected here. Closing this issue as I think we achieved what we were after.

What about this Epic https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHODS-1142? Wouldn't it require the same implementation of this Feature Request?

[andrewballantyne]

@bdattoma we should probably close that Jira ticket. Our priorities have shifted a lot in the last year and ODH will be driven by the latest desires. I highly doubt RHODS-1142 will be reused.

[bdattoma]

@bdattoma we should probably close that Jira ticket. Our priorities have shifted a lot in the last year and ODH will be driven by the latest desires. I highly doubt RHODS-1142 will be reused.

got it, thanks. I will post a comment in Jira to ask Jeff to review that Jira and close it if needed

[bdattoma]

@andrewballantyne according to Jeff this is still in plan

[andrewballantyne]

Understood. This ticket will not track that effort -- when it becomes a priority we will log something new to meet the new standards / tracking we use now.