Page MenuHomePhabricator

have any task put into ops-access-requests automatically generate an ops-access-review task
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

Requirements for tasks files as 'Operations Access Request' (OAR):

  • should get the Operations-Access-Request project associated.
  • Tasks files as 'Operations Access Request' (OAR) should get the Operations project associated.
  • Tasks should be public/all users for permissions (currently this is "admin" and members of operations-access-requests project which is not a "membership" oriented grouping)
  • Tasks should create a subtask that is hidden and set to Operations only (currently this is set to allow ops and the original tasks author which defeats the point of the private subtask). Projects of this sub-task should be Ops-Access-Reviews & SRE

We discussed this in our Phabricator discussions this week, but I cannot find a task to track this particular item.

Any tasks created or moved into ops-access-requests should have a blocking subtask in ops-access-review. The idea of this is the request will have the user info and manager approval, where the review will be a private security review ticket.

Right now, we're manually creating these tickets, but it stinks. Automatically creating these tickets would be ideal. The creator/author is immaterial, but it should NOT include the original requestor of access from the ops-access-request task. It should only be for ops, so having it wholly unassigned and authored by an admin or system user for the blocking task would be ideal.

The suggestion in the meeting was to make an 'access request' option in the security drop down, which would do these ticket creations automatically.

Additionally, any task in ops-access-requests or ops-access-review should also get tagged with SRE.

As such, I've assigned this to Mukunda, since he handles that drop down implementation. If this is incorrect, please let me know!

Event Timeline

RobH assigned this task to mmodell.
RobH raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage.
RobH updated the task description. (Show Details)
RobH added a project: acl*sre-team.
RobH subscribed.

I thought this was already done as part of the security extension. Not extensively tested though.

The described behaviour is essentially how it works, however, it's not based on project tags, it's based on the security dropdown. It's not at all straightforward to make it react to project tag changes. Selecting the access request dropdown should trigger the desired behaviour.

Ah ha, I see the access request dropdown option is missing.

@chasemp: any reason this isn't included in the config?

@mmodell, before today we weren't ready for it, and I wasn't sure if the logic was ported to Security-Extension-2.0?

@chasemp the logic is ported, just not very well tested. I'll do some testing on my local phab and we can go from there.

@chasemp the logic is ported, just not very well tested. I'll do some testing on my local phab and we can go from there.

ok cool thanks man, I'll poke at it too. I think it was good last I checked tho?

@chasemp: See my patch, I fixed a couple of little things (fallout from upstream changes) and this seems to be working well now.

One thing you might not want - it currently includes the "CC'd can see this" behaviour...

Aklapper moved this task from To Triage to Doing on the Phabricator board.

This is blocked on ops, afaik. It's only used by them so I'll let them decide when to merge it.

mmodell changed the task status from Open to Stalled.Feb 18 2015, 8:33 AM

today a new access request came in at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T94390 however I don't see the related blocking task in ops-access-reviews (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/?statuses=open%2Cstalled&allProjects=PHID-PROJ-ig3hjrebd3npo4yozdz7#R)
also in the security dropdown there's no "ops access request" or equivalent, what's the right procedure?

FTR I came here from https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ops_Clinic_Duty#Access_requests where the whole process is outlined on how it is supposed to work

@fgiunchedi: I'm not sure why the menu entry for "ops access request" isn't configured. The code to support it has been merged for quite some time (see rOPUPeebde3bd1102)

@fgiunchedi: I'm not sure why the menu entry for "ops access request" isn't configured. The code to support it has been merged for quite some time (see rOPUPeebde3bd1102)

hey @mmodell, I enabled it here and ran through it and a few things were odd / wrong. I then disabled it and did nothing with that information :) I will try to outline what's up this week here, but overall I think it's minor.

mmodell mentioned this in Unknown Object (Diffusion Commit).Apr 8 2015, 4:33 PM
mmodell changed the task status from Open to Stalled.Apr 14 2015, 5:28 PM

@chasemp: any further info would be welcome

chasemp changed the task status from Stalled to Open.EditedApr 27 2015, 8:49 PM
chasemp updated the task description. (Show Details)
chasemp updated the task description. (Show Details)

I setup phab-01 with the relevant settings and ran through and came up with a few of the aforementioned issues. I put some items in the description. Sorry this took me so long to circle back on.

Doesn't phabricator always assume the author has access? maybe I can work around that.

Doesn't phabricator always assume the author has access? maybe I can work around that.

no it's assignee that always has access

Change 207155 had a related patch set uploaded (by 20after4):
Fix the author username and the project names for ops-access-requests

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/207155

Change 207155 merged by Rush:
Fix the author username and the project names for ops-access-requests

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/207155

Change 207165 had a related patch set uploaded (by 20after4):

  • herald should ignore access-request tasks

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/207165

Change 207165 merged by Rush:

  • herald should ignore access-request tasks

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/207165

@RobH: I believe this should be working now, can you confirm?

As far as I can tell this is resolved, please reopen if there are further problems.