-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 504
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
On-behalf-of token and service account authorization tokens doc #5123
Conversation
@Naarcha-AWS - Can you please take this over now that Chris is gone? Thanks. |
2b55e85
to
9973d84
Compare
@scrawfor99 - did you close this in favor of #4411? |
@hdhalter, I definitely did not mean to close this... Let me see what I did by accident Update: should be fixed. Sorry about that looks like my rebase wiped it and I did not notice |
Signed-off-by: Stephen Crawford <[email protected]>
@hdhalter I am not sure what that issue with the style check means :/ |
Signed-off-by: Stephen Crawford <[email protected]>
The remaining vale warnings I do not plan to address unless required for the documentation to be merged. It is stuff around the headers having numbers etc. |
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.
Thank you, @scrawfor99! Left some comments.
Also, could you add blank lines after each heading? Thanks! |
Co-authored-by: kolchfa-aws <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Stephen Crawford <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: kolchfa-aws <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Stephen Crawford <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: kolchfa-aws <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Stephen Crawford <[email protected]>
I don't see how to ignore the review dog comments that remain. It wants to mess with all the headers etc. but I think they are good |
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.
Thanks, @scrawfor99! A couple of changes before we can mark this PR done.
Co-authored-by: kolchfa-aws <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Stephen Crawford <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: kolchfa-aws <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Stephen Crawford <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: kolchfa-aws <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Stephen Crawford <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: kolchfa-aws <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Stephen Crawford <[email protected]>
@kolchfa-aws should be all set! |
Thank you, @scrawfor99! |
@kolchfa-aws Can this be merged? What is preventing this, can we get 2.12 items merged in a branch so we know they are commited? |
@peternied We usually merge right before the release. This is done to prevent merge conflicts when someone is working on the same file for the current/previous versions. |
@kolchfa-aws Thanks for the fast response. Your scenario is what branches are built for on Github, they allow collaboration and then a PR is made on 'release' day that pulls in all the PRs on that branch.
|
Description
This PR introduces a new document inside the security plugin's access_control directory. The document added details the basic information for On-behalf-of and Service Account tokens. I reviewed the documentation provided for accuracy from a security standpoint and as a doc bar raiser. Hopefully there should not be many further changes required.
I was not sure how to change the linking correctly but did my best.
Issues Resolved
opensearch-project/security#3290
Fixes #4388
Checklist
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.