[Feature] Requesting a new permission for 'status'

[Adam Dyess]

Currently juju provides three user roles 'read','write', and 'admin' for a model. All of these have ability to READ 'juju status' and 'juju config <application>'

I'd like to advocate for a use case where there is a user who is granted permission to READ juju status but not juju config.

There are many cases where the config of a charm is 'private' data such as passwords for services or private keys for services hosted within them. I would like to allow a user the ability to see the health of a model, (juju status) without seeing the configuration of the model (juju config <application>)

Please consider this for a next release of juju

[John A Meinel (jameinel)]

This is something that we can consider. However, the intent for things like "config" were always to have a schema that would declare particular fields are sensitive, and then hide them from read only users. Having a permission level feels like a very big hammer, and would require a lot more explanation/fine grained control to figure out what it actually means. (You can run status, what about show-application, show-unit, show-machine, etc.)

[Pen Gale (pengale)]

I agree that this would best be addressed by the config schema.

I think that we're still officially counting the snap schema as a dependency, as we want things to work the same way in the snap and charm worlds.

[Canonical Juju QA Bot (juju-qa-bot)]

This bug has not been updated in 2 years, so we're marking it Low importance. If you believe this is incorrect, please update the importance.