The experimental functions in `golang.org/x/exp/slices` are now
available in the standard library since Go 1.21.
Reference: https://go.dev/doc/go1.21#slices
Signed-off-by: Eng Zer Jun <engzerjun@gmail.com>
Using negative permissions, this role prevents a user's ability to
create & delete a workspace within a given organization.
Workspaces are uniquely owned by an org and a user, so the org has to
supercede the user permission with a negative permission.
# Use case
Organizations must be able to restrict a member's ability to create a
workspace. This permission is implicitly granted (see
https://github.com/coder/coder/issues/16546#issuecomment-2655437860).
To revoke this permission, the solution chosen was to use negative
permissions in a built in role called `WorkspaceCreationBan`.
# Rational
Using negative permissions is new territory, and not ideal. However,
workspaces are in a unique position.
Workspaces have 2 owners. The organization and the user. To prevent
users from creating a workspace in another organization, an [implied
negative
permission](36d9f5ddb3/coderd/rbac/policy.rego (L172-L192))
is used. So the truth table looks like: _how to read this table
[here](36d9f5ddb3/coderd/rbac/README.md (roles))_
| Role (example) | Site | Org | User | Result |
|-----------------|------|------|------|--------|
| non-org-member | \_ | N | YN\_ | N |
| user | \_ | \_ | Y | Y |
| WorkspaceBan | \_ | N | Y | Y |
| unauthenticated | \_ | \_ | \_ | N |
This new role, `WorkspaceCreationBan` is the same truth table condition
as if the user was not a member of the organization (when doing a
workspace create/delete). So this behavior **is not entirely new**.
<details>
<summary>How to do it without a negative permission</summary>
The alternate approach would be to remove the implied permission, and
grant it via and organization role. However this would add new behavior
that an organizational role has the ability to grant a user permissions
on their own resources?
It does not make sense for an org role to prevent user from changing
their profile information for example. So the only option is to create a
new truth table column for resources that are owned by both an
organization and a user.
| Role (example) | Site | Org |User+Org| User | Result |
|-----------------|------|------|--------|------|--------|
| non-org-member | \_ | N | \_ | \_ | N |
| user | \_ | \_ | \_ | \_ | N |
| WorkspaceAllow | \_ | \_ | Y | \_ | Y |
| unauthenticated | \_ | \_ | \_ | \_ | N |
Now a user has no opinion on if they can create a workspace, which feels
a little wrong. A user should have the authority over what is theres.
There is fundamental _philosophical_ question of "Who does a workspace
belong to?". The user has some set of autonomy, yet it is the
organization that controls it's existence. A head scratcher 🤔
</details>
## Will we need more negative built in roles?
There are few resources that have shared ownership. Only
`ResourceOrganizationMember` and `ResourceGroupMember`. Since negative
permissions is intended to revoke access to a shared resource, then
**no.** **This is the only one we need**.
Classic resources like `ResourceTemplate` are entirely controlled by the
Organization permissions. And resources entirely in the user control
(like user profile) are only controlled by `User` permissions.
![Uploading Screenshot 2025-02-26 at 22.26.52.png…]()
---------
Co-authored-by: Jaayden Halko <jaayden.halko@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: ケイラ <mckayla@hey.com>
`ServeProvisionerDaemonRequest` has had an ID field for quite a while
now.
This field is only used for telemetry purposes; the actual daemon ID is
created upon insertion in the database. There's no reason to set it, and
it's confusing to do so. Deprecating the field and removing references
to it.
Provisioner key permissions were never any different than provisioners.
Merging them for a cleaner permission story until they are required (if
ever) to be seperate.
This removed `ResourceProvisionerKey` from RBAC and just uses the
existing `ResourceProvisioner`.
- Add deleted column to organizations table
- Add trigger to check for existing workspaces, templates, groups and
members in a org before allowing the soft delete
---------
Co-authored-by: Steven Masley <stevenmasley@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Steven Masley <Emyrk@users.noreply.github.com>
Underscores and double hyphens are now blocked. The regex is almost the
exact same as the `coder_app` `slug` regex, but uppercase characters are
still permitted.
This change adds provisioner daemon ID filter to the provisioner daemons
endpoint, and also implements the limiting to 50 results.
Test coverage is greatly improved and template information for jobs
associated to the daemon was also fixed.
Updates #15084
Updates #15192
Related #16532
Addresses https://github.com/coder/internal/issues/317.
## Changes
Requirements are quoted below:
> how many orgs does deployment have
Adds the Organization entity to telemetry.
> ensuring resources are associated with orgs
All resources that reference an org already report the org id to
telemetry. Adds a test to check that.
> whether org sync is configured
Adds the `IDPOrgSync` boolean field to the Deployment entity.
## Implementation of the org sync check
While there's an `OrganizationSyncEnabled` method on the IDPSync
interface, I decided not to use it directly and implemented a
counterpart just for telemetry purposes. It's a compromise I'm not happy
about, but I found that it's a simpler approach than the alternative.
There are multiple reasons:
1. The telemetry package cannot statically access the IDPSync interface
due to a circular import.
2. We can't dynamically pass a reference to the
`OrganizationSyncEnabled` function at the time of instantiating the
telemetry object, because our server initialization logic depends on the
telemetry object being created before the IDPSync object.
3. If we circumvent that problem by passing the reference as an
initially empty pointer, initializing telemetry, then IDPSync, then
updating the pointer to point to `OrganizationSyncEnabled`, we have to
refactor the initialization logic of the telemetry object itself to
avoid a race condition where the first telemetry report is performed
without a valid reference.
I actually implemented that approach in
https://github.com/coder/coder/pull/16307, but realized I'm unable to
fully test it. It changed the initialization order in the server
command, and I wanted to test our CLI with Org Sync configured with a
premium license. As far as I'm aware, we don't have the tooling to do
that. I couldn't figure out a way to start the CLI with a mock license,
and I didn't want to go down further into the refactoring rabbit hole.
So I decided that reimplementing the org sync checking logic is simpler.
* chore(docs): update docs re workspace tag default values
* chore(coderdenttest): use random name instead of t.Name() in newExternalProvisionerDaemon
* fix(provisioner/terraform/tfparse): allow empty values in coder_workspace_tag defaults
Template `use` is now a verb.
- Template admins can `use` all templates (org template admins same in
org)
- Members get the `use` perm from the `everyone` group in the
`group_acl`.
