Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove key from example declaration #47

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 3, 2024

Conversation

sheagcraig
Copy link
Contributor

The key ServerToken is misspelled in this example declaration. Also, it shouldn't be added manually. The MDM itself should be adding that in after hashing the contents to ensure that each change results in a different token.

This declaration also doesn't work as of today; fleetctl gitops will reject it because the macos_updates parameter is protected from DDM SUS profiles conflicting with it. I'm told that's a future feature, so maybe just comment this example file or remove it until then?

Thanks!

Copy link
Member

@lucasmrod lucasmrod left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for this contribution! LGTM.

ServerToken is set by the Fleet server (as explained by @sheagcraig).

@lucasmrod
Copy link
Member

Also @noahtalerman maybe we can delete this example DDM file (as proposed by @sheagcraig) given Fleet manages OS updates and prevents the user from updating such DDM profiles?

@noahtalerman
Copy link
Member

Thanks @sheagcraig!

maybe we can delete this example DDM file (as proposed by @sheagcraig) given Fleet manages OS updates and prevents the user from updating such DDM profiles?

@lucasmrod that makes sense to me but I think we want an example declaration (DDM) profile in here.

I think let's add the password policy DDM profiles and remove OS updates.

Thoughts?

@lucasmrod
Copy link
Member

@noahtalerman noahtalerman merged commit 552bad9 into fleetdm:main Sep 3, 2024
1 check failed
@lucasmrod lucasmrod mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2024
@lucasmrod
Copy link
Member

I've opened #50 as a follow up to this change.

@mikermcneil
Copy link
Member

@sheagcraig \o/

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants