-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 167
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
Bind Emergency and Manual Groups same as PowerUser #2358
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Mikkel Oscar Lyderik Larsen <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mikkel Oscar Lyderik Larsen <[email protected]>
f4e764d
to
015400f
Compare
👍 |
} | ||
}`, | ||
expect: expect{ | ||
status: http.StatusCreated, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
just curious: why are we using 201, when the request was rejected?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is how the AccessReview API works. You "create" a review request 201
and then the response is whether the user would have access to perform that action or not.
👍 |
Partly revert of #2358 to allow only `cdp` service account to `escalate` Signed-off-by: Mikkel Oscar Lyderik Larsen <[email protected]>
Partly revert of #2358 to allow only `cdp` service account to `escalate` Signed-off-by: Mikkel Oscar Lyderik Larsen <[email protected]>
Cherry-pick #2358 to alpha
Binds
Emergency
andManual
Groups same way asPowerUser
since they are defined to have the same permissions.This is currently done in the auth webhook, but we should migrate to RBAC to fix blacklist/whitelist bugs in the auth webhook.