Skip to content
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

Updates ppl example #1385

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 7, 2024
Merged

Updates ppl example #1385

merged 2 commits into from
May 7, 2024

Conversation

ZPain8464
Copy link
Contributor

@ZPain8464 ZPain8464 commented May 7, 2024

Resolves #1383

@kenjenkins I only made the changes we discussed. Please feel free to add any other suggestions while we're here.

@ZPain8464 ZPain8464 requested a review from kenjenkins May 7, 2024 16:05
@ZPain8464 ZPain8464 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 7, 2024 16:05
@ZPain8464 ZPain8464 requested review from cmo-pomerium and removed request for a team May 7, 2024 16:05
Copy link

netlify bot commented May 7, 2024

Deploy Preview for pomerium-docs ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 42fac60
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/pomerium-docs/deploys/663a978e777a8100089f91c0
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-1385--pomerium-docs.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

- domain:
is: example.com
- user:
- email:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we're going to have just one condition in this block I'd recommend keeping the domain condition rather than email. I think that makes a little more sense as a policy: "allow everyone from this domain except for these two specific users"; otherwise it's not clear why you would need a deny block at all.

@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ Entries marked with `*` denote criteria that are only available in the [Enterpri
| \* `record` | variable | Allows policies to be extended using data from [external data sources](/docs/integrations) |
| `reject` | Anything. Typically `true`. | Always returns false. The opposite of `accept`. |
| \* `time_of_day` | [Time of Day Matcher] | Returns true if the time of the request (for the current day) matches the constraints. |
| `user` | [String Matcher] | Returns true if the logged-in user's id matches the given value. |
| `user` | [String Matcher] | Returns `true` if the logged-in user's ID matches the supplied value. (The actual value of the user ID claim depends on how the identity provider sets this value.) |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, I think this is probably helpful clarification.

Copy link
Contributor

@kenjenkins kenjenkins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@ZPain8464 ZPain8464 merged commit 8b04b0b into main May 7, 2024
8 checks passed
@ZPain8464 ZPain8464 deleted the zpain/update-ppl-example branch May 7, 2024 21:07
backport-actions-token bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 7, 2024
* updates ppl example

* updates ppl example
ZPain8464 added a commit that referenced this pull request May 7, 2024
Updates ppl example (#1385)

* updates ppl example

* updates ppl example

Co-authored-by: zachary painter <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Example PPL policy is potentially confusing
2 participants