You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As I understand it, this query only returns providers that the current user created within the active organization.
My use case is a bit different: I’m setting up a project for a customer, but I’m not an owner/admin of their GitHub organization. This means I cannot create a provider for myself that has access to the repositories I need.
Is this use case intentionally unsupported, or would it make sense to allow organization members (not just creators) to list all providers?
Actually, the system is returning the privateKey, clientSecret,... But could we imagine not passing these values to a non-owner of the resource, but just allowing to use the resource to deploy things. Of course, the user initiating the connection would tick a "share this Git provider with the XXX organization". Would you see anything bad doing this?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Just a quick question, as I'm wondering, why is the API not returning all providers when being an owner?
apps/dokploy/server/api/routers/git-provider.ts:9-23:As I understand it, this query only returns providers that the current user created within the active organization.
My use case is a bit different: I’m setting up a project for a customer, but I’m not an owner/admin of their GitHub organization. This means I cannot create a provider for myself that has access to the repositories I need.
Is this use case intentionally unsupported, or would it make sense to allow organization members (not just creators) to list all providers?
Actually, the system is returning the privateKey, clientSecret,... But could we imagine not passing these values to a non-owner of the resource, but just allowing to use the resource to deploy things. Of course, the user initiating the connection would tick a "share this Git provider with the XXX organization". Would you see anything bad doing this?
Thanks for any clarification!
Kind regards,
Brandon
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions