<!-- The first three sections: "Problem to solve", "Intended users" and "Proposal", are strongly recommended, while the rest of the sections can be filled out during the problem validation or breakdown phase. However, keep in mind that providing complete and relevant information early helps our product team validate the problem and start working on a solution. --> ### Problem to solve <!-- What problem do we solve? Try to define the who/what/why of the opportunity as a user story. For example, "As a (who), I want (what), so I can (why/value)." --> Compliance-minded organizations, or generally those with standard auditing practices, need to be able to view a [list of user access](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/1772) within their GitLab instances. Knowing what users are part of specific groups and projects helps an organization audit those memberships as part of their access management policy. Currently, GitLab does not provide a simple, friendly way to obtain this information and the only current workaround is leveraging multiple GitLab API endpoints to create this report. ### Intended users [Cameron (Compliance Manager)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#cameron-compliance-manager) ### Further details <!-- Include use cases, benefits, goals, or any other details that will help us understand the problem better. --> This is the first iterative change we can make towards delivering this feature to customers due to some technical challenges with the [original proposal](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/1772). Of import: * Rendering the data within the GitLab UI has a considerable performance cost (e.g. 6.75s to render data for 20 users) * Using current API endpoints also has a considerable performance cost (e.g. 9s for 44 users) * UX challenges for larger instances where group and project memberships may be high ### Proposal <!-- How are we going to solve the problem? Try to include the user journey! https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/journeys/#user-journey --> Create a GraphQL API endpoint specifically tuned for querying data about a user's group and project memberships. The JSON response would look similar to this: ```json [ { "user_id": 1, "memberships": [ { "access_level": 20, "created_by_id": 37, "source_id": 1, "source_type": "Project", "created_at" : "2017-03-17T17:18:09.283Z", "updated_at" : "2017-03-17T17:18:09.283Z" }, { "access_level": 20, "created_by_id": 20, "source_id": 3, "source_type": "Namespace", "created_at" : "2017-03-17T17:18:09.283Z", "updated_at" : "2017-03-17T17:18:09.283Z" }, { "access_level": 40, "created_by_id": nil, "source_id": 28, "source_type": "Project", "created_at" : "2017-03-17T17:18:09.283Z", "updated_at" : "2017-03-17T17:18:09.283Z" } ] }, { "user_id": 20, "memberships": [ { "access_level": 50, "created_by_id": 1, "source_id": 5, "source_type": "Project", "created_at" : "2017-03-17T17:18:09.283Z", "updated_at" : "2017-03-17T17:18:09.283Z" } ] } ] ``` ### Permissions and Security <!-- What permissions are required to perform the described actions? Are they consistent with the existing permissions as documented for users, groups, and projects as appropriate? Is the proposed behavior consistent between the UI, API, and other access methods (e.g. email replies)?--> Only `administrators` should be able to pull this data via API. ### Documentation <!-- See the Feature Change Documentation Workflow https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/feature-change-workflow.html * Add all known Documentation Requirements in this section. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/feature-change-workflow.html#documentation-requirements * If this feature requires changing permissions, update the permissions document. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/permissions.html --> ### Availability & Testing <!-- This section needs to be retained and filled in during the workflow planning breakdown phase of this feature proposal, if not earlier. What risks does this change pose to our availability? How might it affect the quality of the product? What additional test coverage or changes to tests will be needed? Will it require cross-browser testing? Please list the test areas (unit, integration and end-to-end) that needs to be added or updated to ensure that this feature will work as intended. Please use the list below as guidance. * Unit test changes * Integration test changes * End-to-end test change See the test engineering planning process and reach out to your counterpart Software Engineer in Test for assistance: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/test-engineering/#test-planning --> ### What does success look like, and how can we measure that? <!-- Define both the success metrics and acceptance criteria. Note that success metrics indicate the desired business outcomes, while acceptance criteria indicate when the solution is working correctly. If there is no way to measure success, link to an issue that will implement a way to measure this. --> ### What is the type of buyer? <!-- What is the buyer persona for this feature? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/buyer-persona/ In which enterprise tier should this feature go? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/pricing/#four-tiers --> ### Is this a cross-stage feature? <!-- Communicate if this change will affect multiple Stage Groups or product areas. We recommend always start with the assumption that a feature request will have an impact into another Group. Loop in the most relevant PM and Product Designer from that Group to provide strategic support to help align the Group's broader plan and vision, as well as to avoid UX and technical debt. https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/#cross-stage-features --> ### Links / references - [Example GraphQL endpoint implementation](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/commit/063270db71344f68607c714a9ccf590181e2e050) ### GraphQL Query ```graphql { users { pageInfo { startCursor endCursor hasNextPage   } nodes { id ...memberships } } } fragment membership on MemberInterface { createdAt updatedAt accessLevel { integerValue stringValue } createdBy { id } } fragment memberships on User { groupMemberships { nodes { ...membership group { id } } } projectMemberships { nodes { ...membership project { id } } } } ```