Is it possible to give read-only access to private Github project boards? Not to the code projects, just to the boards? The code is for developers but other people in the company should be able to see the status of various projects.
Also, is such access free? I'm setting this up for a small startup and funds are still tight. I don't want to make it expensive for them to get help from friends and family.
You can give access to read or write access to repositories, but it does not provide access like this, but you can look for permission information on this link.
https://help.github.com/articles/permission-levels-for-an-organization/
You can review the article at https://code.tutsplus.com/articles/team-collaboration-with-github--net-29876
We have used waffle in past and it works for providing status only. You can use Waffle for providing the status on different issues https://waffle.io without giving access.
Related
I'm working on a project, and I want to authenticate into, and use the Github API, in order to make some modifications to the project. Simple operations such as creating a new branch in the existing repo, creating a pull request etc., are some of the actions I am planning to do.
For the authentication to happen, I understand we can use a username/password combo, or create a personal access token(which is best practice). For now, I want to test it using username and password. I am looking for ways to do that, and some solutions suggested using GithubClient library.
For using this library, I am trying to understand..what is the dependency/dependencies I need to include for this? And how can I use GithubClient for this? I am struggling to find online resources for this, so reaching out here for any answers/documentation on this process.
We are developing a keycloak(5.0.0) based solution where our clients can create their account with us and manage their own users - and only their users.
Initially with thought that we could use realms for this. Every client gets their own realm. After initial testing we deemed it might not be a good solution as after creating ~500 realms the application becomes unresponsive(https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-4593).
We decided to try using Groups to emulate a tenant. Our objective is to create during an external process(keycloak REST API) a group with an admin user.
Can't find currently a way how to restrict this administrator to be able to only manage their own group(creating subgroups, managing users, and giving them roles).
I've noticed several emails mentioning these features but I fail to find actual examples to make this work.
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/2017-June/010882.html
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/2017-June/009496.html
The second link shows exactly what we would like to achieve.
Current alternative I can see is to implement a facade(client or separate web app) which would restrict visibility and access to other groups.
Are there other alternatives?
I am using github to share a set of SPARQL queries:
http://www.boisvert.me.uk/opendata/sparql_aq+.html?file=specific%20sensor.txt
Currently the simple work allows end-users to access queries stored on the github repository, but ultimately I want to allow them to also modify the queries, as with a pastebin, and make use of the repository to better manage the shared system. Ideally I would want end-users who may not be very tech-savvy, to be able to make minor changes to queries to an open, linked data endpoint: so to keep the technology barrier low.
My problem is this: how best to structure the github project and exploit the API to make the most of the available information? I can think of different points:
Currently the project (https://github.com/boisvert/unshaql) holds client code and example queries. Does it make a difference to create an independent project (separate from the web client code) for SPARQL queries?
I would use directories within the project to classify/tag queries, and file names to title them. Are there better alternatives? It strikes me that a hierarchical structure is not a good fit to tags.
When end-users save, a simpler (and cruder) option is to allow them to push their file into just one branch, which holds the examples. A better engineered one would be to allow them to use their github credentials to fork the set of SPARQL queries and edit theirs, but with unaware users, how do I avoid creating a mess?
I think that a rigular Github repository is a rather bad fit for this kind of content. If your users have a GitHub account, you should probably use Gists instead: https://help.github.com/articles/about-gists/ I never used this myself, but it seems perfectly adapted to what you are planning. Your site could become a DB of tags over user-provided gists. That would however lock you into GitHub-specific solutions.
Even if you go for a regular repository, you should not allow the users to commit into the repository hosting your code: that would be a serious security hazard as you won't be able to control the parts of the repository to which they are allowed to commit.
If you setup two repositories, it's rather easy to have the code of a webpage in a repository, and the code automatically commited in another repository (under an anonymous identity so that your users don't have to create a github account).
Also, note that the oauth token should never be stored in a public repository (or the GitHub robots will invalidate it in a matter of hours).
See Hiding GitHub token in .gitconfig for a solution to this sub-problem.
Can Google cloud storage be used in such an application without a proper http server (Traditional LAMP stack, GAE, etc.)?
If you're having a hard time wrapping your head around "static data powered application", think of it like a blog where you can only read the blog posts (i.e. no likes,comments or any kind of interaction) and which is managed by only one person who updates, adds or removes those blog posts.
The main concerns that I have are :
Read-only access from JavaScript at client side
Prevention against abuse (Does google automatically detect and ban an IP when it sends too many requests, so that the IP can't abuse bandwidth?)
I did some basic digging around the docs, but couldn't find the answer to these, possibly because not many have tried this, I guess.
The access question is already answered by Paul. You can add "read" permission to all users for your object. If you want to do so for all objects in a bucket, you can also set the default object ACL for the bucket to contain such permission.
Google does have abuse protection, but it's not designed for a specific service or resource, and the bar is pretty high given Google's global scale, so it probably won't help your specific use case.
Unfortunately you cannot set a maximum daily spending yet. The Google cloud platform team is always working on new features to help customers solve these issues, but I cannot comment on specific feature or timeline.
We are currently using Freshdesk for our customer support and GitHub for our code. On receiving a bug or an improvement feature request via Freshdesk, we would like to forward that ticket (with all the details + screenshots) to an email in GitHub so an issue is created automatically on GitHub. That would save us a manual entry.
Look forward to an advice on this or a better solution.
NOTE: Had come across https://zapier.com/zapbook/gmail/github/72/create-github-issue-email , but we would prefer a direct interaction without a third-party app in between.
Creating an issue to GitHub wouldn't be done by "sending an email", but only by using the GitHub v3 issue API (like this script, for example, to migrate issues to GitHub)
That means in your case having a trigger on FreshDesk (or an "Observer" to call a webhook) which would parse the ticket and create the appropriate bug report on GitHub.
From the Observer/WebHook help page:
Webhooks also come handy when you want to trigger an action in an external application or tool (as well as some updates that the Observer can't perform, like update time entry on a ticket or add a note to a ticket)
You would manage that webhook locally on your side, and that callback would in turn call the right GitHub API commands to create the GitHub issue.
We had similar needs and built a very simple tool to let anyone in the team send/forward emails to create GitHub issues. We were using it internally at first so that non engineering team members didn't have to go to GitHub to create issues. We just made it available to anyone (and free). It supports attachments.
You can find it at https://fire.fundersclub.com.