4 ms·

I'm pretty sure it's because of Github's limited scope levels. Slack has a similar thing, but they call it out in support docs - see here: https://slack.zendes

I'm pretty sure it's because of Github's limited scope levels. Slack has a similar thing, but they call it out in support docs - see here: https://slack.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201824286-Setting-up-the-GitHub-integration https://slack.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201824286-Settin... Actually, I just had a dig through their FAQ and Coveralls answers this: https://coveralls.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201344219-Why-do-you-require-write-access-for-private-repos- https://coveralls.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201344219-Wh... So basically it's a limitation on Github's side, by not providing a read-only scope for repos.

jessaustin 12y ago
I don't have any private repos on Github. And besides it's asking for write on both public and private. Thanks for the Slack link though, the "no auth" page linked from there indicates that they just need some webhooks installed, and users can do that themselves. Besides, I was perfectly happy with Coveralls' service yesterday. They could make at least a token effort toward explaining what more they can do with God access.
- joshschreuder 12y ago
  It's because the Github 'repo' scope is for access to public and private repos, in both read and write modes. The Github scopes are not finely grained enough for applications using them to ask for only the minimal permissions they need. I do agree that Coveralls should explain this better, either before they ask for the permissions, or at least in their FAQs.