<!-- triage-serverless PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION --> The following page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and functionality. It is important to note that the information presented is for informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for purchasing or planning purposes. Just like with all projects, the items mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the sole discretion of GitLab Inc. <!-- triage-serverless PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS SECTION --> ### Problem to solve In Gitlab.com, we use top-level groups as the construct that defines an organization's workspace. If an organization is using SSO, users are automatically added to the top-level group as Guest, which for some organizations is too permissive. In a self-managed instance, administrators can add users to an instance and selectively add them to groups/projects as needed. We need to simulate that experience for Gitlab.com customers. ### Intended users * [Sidney (Systems Administrator)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sidney-systems-administrator) * [Sam (Security Analyst)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sam-security-analyst) ### User experience goal Administrators can add members to the parent group for SSO purposes but they don't automatically have access to projects/groups underneath. This is one of the top reasons why customers want to disable inheritance (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/33534). If we had this feature we could essentially ask administrators to add users to the levels they need access to instead of marking what needs to be excluded from the hierarchy. So a similar result but a different way of tackling the need. ### Proposal Create a role that gives no access to top-level resources. The experience should be similar to not existing in the top-level group. - The "unassigned" role should only be assignable to users in the top-level group via the UI or API. - A user with the "no access" role should not be able to list subgroups/projects unless they have been explicitly added to them. - If a user with the "unassigned" role is explicitly added to a group further down in the hierarchy, our existing inheritance model will apply to any subgroups or projects underneath. - A user with the "unassigned" role should not have access to any of the top-level group resources. - If a "unassigned" role user hasn't been added to any other group/project, all they will see in their groups is the top-level group. Trying to access it will give them a limited view of the group. In the section where the group hierarchy is normally shown they will see a message "You don't have access to any resources in this group." - Users with the "unassigned" role are shown in the members list if they are direct members. Users with the "unassigned" role are not shown in the members list if they are inherited members. - This role should be available as an option in the `Default membership role` in SAML/SSO configuration. - This role should be available in gitlab.com and self managed. Silver/Premium and above. ### Further details A huge challenge with [disabling group inheritance](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/33534) has been the sensitivity of the underlying code. It is proving very hard to change. As pointed out in @mksionek's MR, we're now considering a [working group](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/28695#note_351664742) and doing more investigation on all the potential effects. * **MyCompany** (top-level group) * *SecretGroup* (subgroup) * **General** (subgroup) Since SAML is currently configured at the top-level group, users will SSO in. At a minimum, they have Guest access to **MyCompany** group, so they have Guest access to all subgroups. This includes *SecretGroup*, so it's not possible to keep the projects in *SecretGroup* confidential. Instead of allowing members to be in **MyCompany** as Guests at minimum, introduce a `No Role` membership. New members who are added to **MyCompany** via SAML or otherwise get added as `No Role`s to **MyCompany**. Being a `No Role` means that you can do almost nothing in the group. While inheritance is technically still in place since `No Role` is being inherited into *SecretGroup* and **General**, it doesn't matter since you can't do or see anything with `No Role`. Therefore, I need to add/update my member's specific roles in *SecretGroup* and **General**. For a new member, I can just add them to **General** as a Guest ... Owner to give them access where they can start contributing. Their `No Role` access in *SecretGroup* means that subgroup remains a secret. ### 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)?--> ### Documentation <!-- See the Feature Change Documentation Workflow https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/workflow.html#for-a-product-change * 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 need 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 on 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