docs(ownership): add caveat for open membership ownership assignment#17441
Open
docs(ownership): add caveat for open membership ownership assignment#17441
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
1 Skipped Deployment
|
shashjar
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2026
| @@ -187,4 +187,4 @@ Give your alert a descriptive name, such as the team affected and the topic of t | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Team | |||
|
|
|||
| You can choose a team to associate with an alert so that members of that team can edit this alert. Note that you can only make this association if you are a member of the team. If no team is selected, anybody can edit the alert. | |||
| You can choose a team to associate with an alert so that members of that team can edit this alert. Note that you can only make this association if you are a member of the team, unless the organization has [Open Membership](/organization/membership/#open-membership) enabled. If no team is selected, anybody can edit the alert. | |||
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit if you prefer:
- "you can only make this association" --> "you can only create this association"
cvxluo
added a commit
to getsentry/sentry
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2026
…13707) Be more permissive when assigning issue owners. Two forms of this: - stop using OwnerActorField - for open membership, allow issue assignment to any user or team, as long as the assigner has project level access We want to stop using OwnerActorField since issue assignment doesn't convey any permissions increase or access to the issue, it's primarily a label for searching. Since issue ownership has its own validation in `validate_assignedTo`, this won't have any increase in permissions. Note that alerts, etc. still use OwnerActorField. We also want to allow basically all issue assignment with open membership on. There were some previous edge cases, like where you couldn't assign a team to a issue if the team didn't have access to the project, even with open membership on. These will now be allowed. Small docs update that clarifies this: getsentry/sentry-docs#17441 More context: https://www.notion.so/sentry/permissive-ownership-assignments-3348b10e4b5d806e91b4cbf12af6a26c?source=copy_link Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
cvxluo
force-pushed
the
cvxluo/add-caveat-for-open-membership-ownership-assignmen
branch
from
b2b7e35 to
ce27c6c
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
DESCRIBE YOUR PR
Add some notes on caveats to ownership assignment for metric issues and issues. These were behaviors that will be solidified after getsentry/sentry#113707
IS YOUR CHANGE URGENT?
Help us prioritize incoming PRs by letting us know when the change needs to go live.
SLA
Thanks in advance for your help!
PRE-MERGE CHECKLIST
Make sure you've checked the following before merging your changes:
LEGAL BOILERPLATE
Look, I get it. The entity doing business as "Sentry" was incorporated in the State of Delaware in 2015 as Functional Software, Inc. and is gonna need some rights from me in order to utilize my contributions in this here PR. So here's the deal: I retain all rights, title and interest in and to my contributions, and by keeping this boilerplate intact I confirm that Sentry can use, modify, copy, and redistribute my contributions, under Sentry's choice of terms.
EXTRA RESOURCES