DOCS-3816: Add workflow permissions to update module instructions

[JessamyT]

No description provided.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for viam-docs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	76d25b5
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/viam-docs/deploys/67ed6d56a8c1870008c41e31
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4178--viam-docs.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 20 (🔴 down 6 from production) Accessibility: 100 (no change from production) Best Practices: 100 (no change from production) SEO: 92 (no change from production) PWA: 70 (no change from production) View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[npentrel]

Why are you adding this? I've used the gh workflows and have not had to do this for my repositories

[JessamyT]

Why are you adding this? I've used the gh workflows and have not had to do this for my repositories

Oh really? I’ve always had to do it, and with the micro stuff that is in the works, Esha had to do it with those as well (that’s separate but perhaps supports that what I ran into wasn’t a fluke).
Checking with SME

[JessamyT]

Perhaps this is because I was in my own private repo vs in viam-labs or somesuch? I could move this into a caveat/troubleshooting tip since repos may have different defaults

[npentrel]

It may be because we're not in an org for our private modules but what confuses me is that mine is set to Read repository contents and packages permissions (Workflows have read permissions in the repository for the contents and packages scopes only.) which appears to be enough. So maybe we should direct them to use that option instead? The actions should not need write permissions as far as I can understand.

(And I think a step is fine, probably most people in an org will then need to take this option that makes sense. And we do want to reduce expanders I think)

[JessamyT]

(And I think a step is fine, probably most people in an org will then need to take this option that makes sense. And we do want to reduce expanders I think)

For this and the wifi PR, you've mentioned reducing expanders but this is an alert. Do you mean that we want to reduce both expanders and alerts?

[npentrel]

(And I think a step is fine, probably most people in an org will then need to take this option that makes sense. And we do want to reduce expanders I think)

For this and the wifi PR, you've mentioned reducing expanders but this is an alert. Do you mean that we want to reduce both expanders and alerts?

Yes. Everything that adds a box should really only be there if necessary.

I think we still need to clarify under which condition this would require write permissions (as I said, it works without for https://github.com/npentrel/control-logic-example-module so I am not even sure if that is true)

[npentrel]

see above comments

[JessamyT]

I tried replicating on one of my private modules and can't...I'll close and will reinvestigate if it comes up again.