Make it clear that the private component project is not visible
Summary
Currently, it's challenging to restrict the visibility of the private component project to only authorized members. To address this, we could provide a message that indicates its limited access to ensure proper visibility controls are understood.
Definition of Done
- Index page: Users can easily identify private projects in the catalog list.
- Details page: Users can easily see that the selected component project is accessible only to project members.
Details
Design spec
Roles involved
- Design
- Technical Writing
- Backend
- Frontend
- Test engineering
NOTE: When work is ready to be defined, please create appropriate sub-tasks.
Designs
- Show closed items
Activity
-
Newest first Oldest first
-
Show all activity Show comments only Show history only
- Sunjung Park added gitlab-org#12713 as parent epic
added gitlab-org#12713 as parent epic
- Sunjung Park changed the description
Compare with previous version changed the description
- Sunjung Park assigned to @sunjungp
assigned to @sunjungp
- Sunjung Park changed milestone to %Backlog
changed milestone to %Backlog
- Sunjung Park added UX frontend grouppipeline authoring labels
added UX frontend grouppipeline authoring labels
- 🤖 GitLab Bot 🤖 added Category:Pipeline Composition devopsverify sectionci labels
added Category:Pipeline Composition devopsverify sectionci labels
- Sunjung Park added Technical Writing UI text labels
added Technical Writing UI text labels
- Sunjung Park changed the description
Compare with previous version changed the description
- Author Developer
@dhershkovitch I’ve created an issue based on our discussion from this week. If this epic isn’t the most suitable, please feel free to reassign it. Thanks!
Collapse replies - Developer
I've mark it as workflowready for design
1
- Sunjung Park added design-weight1 label
added design-weight1 label
- Dov Hershkovitch added workflowready for design label
added workflowready for design label
- Sunjung Park added workflowdesign label and removed workflowready for design label
added workflowdesign label and removed workflowready for design label
- Sunjung Park changed milestone to %17.4
changed milestone to %17.4
- Sunjung Park added severity3 label
added severity3 label
- Sunjung Park added maintenanceusability typemaintenance labels
added maintenanceusability typemaintenance labels
- Sunjung Park changed the description
Compare with previous version changed the description
- Sunjung Park changed milestone to %17.5
changed milestone to %17.5
- Sunjung Park mentioned in issue gitlab-org/ci-cd/pipeline-authoring#158 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/ci-cd/pipeline-authoring#158 (closed)
- Sunjung Park added usability label
added usability label
- Sunjung Park removed from epic &12713
removed from epic &12713
- Sunjung Park added gitlab-org#14988 (closed) as parent epic
added gitlab-org#14988 (closed) as parent epic
- Sunjung Park added Category:Component Catalog label
added Category:Component Catalog label
- Sunjung Park changed milestone to %17.4
changed milestone to %17.4
- Sunjung Park added 4 designs
added 4 designs
- Sunjung Park started a discussion on _480522-alert-details.png
started a discussion on _480522-alert-details.png
- Sunjung Park started a discussion on _480522-tooltip-details.png
started a discussion on _480522-tooltip-details.png
- Author Developer
Hi @marcel.amirault
There is another unplanned issue that needs your help! We want to communicate the visibility a bit more clearly to users. Could you review the text in the alert and the tooltip?Thank you!
1 1 Collapse replies - Author Developer
Many thanks @marcel.amirault for the review!
@dhershkovitch @marknuzzo The design is ready. Please add a candidate label for this change!
cc @bsandlin
1 - Contributor
Unless @dhershkovitch has strong feelings here, looking at the current list for @bsandlin in %17.5 and given the current higher severity level, I think a candidate17.6 would be appropriate here for weighting.
1 - Maintainer
Sounds good!
- alert
- reusable lock icon component with tooltip in 2 places
- adding in logic for private projects
This one is a 2
1 1 - Maintainer
@bsandlin - Do we already have information that a given component project is private on the frontend?
1 - Maintainer
@rkadam3 ah.. great call out. We will need
visibility
added toCiCatalogResource
. I will check the backend box and add a task for that! 1
- Sunjung Park marked the checklist item Technical Writing as completed
marked the checklist item Technical Writing as completed
- Sunjung Park added workflowplanning breakdown label and removed workflowdesign label
added workflowplanning breakdown label and removed workflowdesign label
- Sunjung Park unassigned @sunjungp
unassigned @sunjungp
- Sunjung Park marked the checklist item Frontend as completed
marked the checklist item Frontend as completed
- Sunjung Park changed the description
Compare with previous version changed the description
- Dov Hershkovitch changed milestone to %Backlog
changed milestone to %Backlog
- Mark Nuzzo added candidate17.6 label
added candidate17.6 label
- Briley Sandlin set weight to 2
set weight to 2
- Mark Nuzzo added workflowready for development label and removed workflowplanning breakdown label
added workflowready for development label and removed workflowplanning breakdown label
- Dov Hershkovitch mentioned in issue gitlab-org/ci-cd/pipeline-authoring#161 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/ci-cd/pipeline-authoring#161 (closed)
- Dov Hershkovitch mentioned in issue gitlab-com/Product#13611
mentioned in issue gitlab-com/Product#13611
- Briley Sandlin marked the checklist item Backend as completed
marked the checklist item Backend as completed
- Briley Sandlin added #483911 (closed) as child task
added #483911 (closed) as child task
- Briley Sandlin added #483912 as child task
added #483912 as child task
- Briley Sandlin added backend label
added backend label
- Viktor Nagy (GitLab) added co-create label
added co-create label
- Jackie Porter changed milestone to %17.6
changed milestone to %17.6
- 🤖 GitLab Bot 🤖 mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/triage-reports#20246 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-org/quality/triage-reports#20246 (closed)
- Sunjung Park mentioned in issue gitlab-com/Product#13688 (closed)
mentioned in issue gitlab-com/Product#13688 (closed)
- Laura Montemayor assigned to @lauraXD
assigned to @lauraXD
- Laura Montemayor added workflowin dev label and removed workflowready for development label
added workflowin dev label and removed workflowready for development label
- Maintainer
Hi @bsandlin! I assigned myself to the backend task for this as it is part of the required feature work for 17.6
Would the following work for you? If so, I will create an MR so I can unblock the FE :)
For one resource:
{ ciCatalogResource(fullPath: "gitlab-org/public-catalog-resource") { visibilityLevel } }
{ "data": { "ciCatalogResource": { "visibilityLevel": "public" } } }
For all resources:
{ ciCatalogResources { visibilityLevel name } }
{ "data": { "ciCatalogResources": { "nodes": [ { "visibilityLevel": "public", "name": "public-catalog-resource" }, { "visibilityLevel": "private", "name": "private-catalog-resource" }, { "visibilityLevel": "internal", "name": "internal-catalog-resource" } ] } } }
Collapse replies - Maintainer
@lauraXD That would be perfect! ty. For my understanding, what's the difference between
private
andinternal
? - Maintainer
@bsandlin - sure!
internal
is only relevant to self-managed, so basically - it's only visible in their own instance. I don't think we need to worry about this thankfully I just had an internal project so it came up in the test.I will send this off to review tomorrow then
1 - Maintainer
@lauraXD perfect thank you!
- Maintainer
@bsandlin the BE for this is being merged :) so I will un-assign myself from this. BTW - I think this was weighted a
2
but it has both BE and FE. Should we update it? The BE was a small task but I'm not sure about the FE. - Maintainer
@lauraXD Excellent! Yeah now that I took a deeper look, the frontend alone is prob a 3. You could add that to whatever yours was and update?
- Maintainer
@bsandlin awesome, I updated this to a 5! I think we might start using XS/S/M/L/XL soon, but for now I think this is good
- Maintainer
right on!