Skip to content

Conversation

@gavinelder
Copy link
Contributor

@gavinelder gavinelder commented Apr 30, 2025

The following updated the existing tower IAM policy by segmenting it into resource classes so end users can customize this to suit their own specific needs.

There are no additional permissions / added or removed only changes to the logical grouping along within additional explanations as to how an end user can craft these policies themselves.

Please note that further to this an end user can define a custom IAM policy for CE environments manually giving them a finer level of control under the CE environment advanced options.

@robsyme
Copy link
Member

robsyme commented Jun 30, 2025

These look great to me. I don't have write permissions on the repo, but looks good to merge.

@justinegeffen
Copy link
Contributor

This looks awesome, @gavinelder! Can we use it in the public documentation?

@gavinelder gavinelder marked this pull request as ready for review July 1, 2025 07:59
@gavinelder
Copy link
Contributor Author

@justinegeffen I would love for us to merge this into public docs

@justinegeffen
Copy link
Contributor

@justinegeffen I would love for us to merge this into public docs

Absolutely no problem doing that! I'll open a PR shortly. :)

@gavinelder gavinelder changed the title WIP: Basic Explination of IAM policies docs: Add detailed explication of IAM policies Jul 11, 2025
Copy link
Member

@bebosudo bebosudo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great start! I left some comments to improve the meaning. Happy to give this a second pass

Copy link
Member

@bebosudo bebosudo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

here are some more possible improvements

@kenibrewer
Copy link
Member

Some feedback from a prospect getting set up on Seqera Platform for the first time on this PR:

Appreciate the link to the newer forge-policy.json​ version in Gavin’s branch, as well. I think that would be a worthy merge into master, as that version of the policy is much less worrying to see than the version currently in master and linked to from the README.

@justinegeffen
Copy link
Contributor

@bebosudo, @gavinelder: would be great if we could merge this PR. Let me know how I can help push it over the line. :)

Copy link
Member

@bebosudo bebosudo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

More comments that I'll commit in the next step

@justinegeffen
Copy link
Contributor

This is great, thanks all! I did an editorial pass to tidy up formatting and some minor language changes. Other than that, it's good to go on my side!

kenibrewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

@gavinelder gavinelder requested a review from pditommaso November 4, 2025 20:43
Copy link
Member

@kenibrewer kenibrewer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Taking a second look, a lot of these changes are big steps in the right direction. So let's merge this and improve in follow-on PRs if needed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants