Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

authz/github: do not recommend groupsCacheTTL, document allowGroupsPermissionsSync #24528

Merged

Conversation

bobheadxi
Copy link
Member

@bobheadxi bobheadxi commented Sep 1, 2021

Adding example value makes groupsCacheTTL a recommended default, which we no longer want to push for. This PR makes the experimental status and niche use case more apparent, and removes the example.

Kapture 2021-09-01 at 17 26 20

Also documents the allowGroupsPermissionsSync introduced in #24328

@sourcegraph-bot
Copy link
Contributor

sourcegraph-bot commented Sep 1, 2021

Notifying subscribers in CODENOTIFY files for diff f0e9c1e...caf61b1.

Notify File(s)
@christinaforney doc/admin/external_service/github.md
doc/admin/repo/permissions.md
@sourcegraph/distribution doc/admin/external_service/github.md
doc/admin/repo/permissions.md

@bobheadxi bobheadxi changed the title authz/github: do not recommend enabling groupsCacheTTL by default authz/github: do not recommend groupsCacheTTL, document allowGroupsPermissionsSync Sep 2, 2021
@bobheadxi
Copy link
Member Author

@unknwon I'm starting to think, should allowGroupsPermissionsSync be required to enable groups cache?

@unknwon
Copy link
Member

unknwon commented Sep 2, 2021

@unknwon I'm starting to think, should allowGroupsPermissionsSync be required to enable groups cache?

it is in fact required IMO... it's probably just not easy to validate in our current code structure?

@bobheadxi bobheadxi enabled auto-merge (squash) September 2, 2021 14:38
@bobheadxi bobheadxi merged commit e34980d into main Sep 2, 2021
@bobheadxi bobheadxi deleted the groupscachettl-dont-recommend-enabling-groupsCacheTTL branch September 2, 2021 14:44
@bobheadxi
Copy link
Member Author

it is in fact required IMO... it's probably just not easy to validate in our current code structure?

now enforced here: #24561

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants