Enterprise Team Synchronization - Incorrect invite information

[spektrixadmin]

Code of Conduct

• [X] I have read and agree to the GitHub Docs project's Code of Conduct

What article on docs.github.com is affected?

https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/admin/identity-and-access-management/using-saml-for-enterprise-iam/managing-team-synchronization-for-organizations-in-your-enterprise#managing-whether-team-synchronization-can-invite-non-members-to-organizations

What part(s) of the article would you like to see updated?

The documentation in the article suggests that there should be a "Do not allow Team Sync to invite non-members to organizations."

Under "Team synchronization" there is no checkbox for "Do not allow Team Sync to invite non-members to organizations.".

I see the following:

I don't know it this is a limitation of an enterprise account or simply incorrect documentation. This is blocking us from getting our SAML enabled Enterprise account setup from automatically inviting users to organisations where they are members of teams.

Additional information

I am currently using an Enterprise Trail account and am configuring Team Synchronization at an Enterprise level.

[welcome[bot]]

Thanks for opening this issue. A GitHub docs team member should be by to give feedback soon. In the meantime, please check out the contributing guidelines.

[cmwilson21]

@spektrixadmin Thanks for opening an issue and providing the screenshots! ✨

I'll get this triaged for review! :zap:

[cmwilson21]

@spektrixadmin If this is still blocking you and while this is waiting for review, please reach out to our awesome support team.

Someone will review if there's a need to documentation update soon ✨

[lecoursen]

Thanks @spektrixadmin! I dug into this and found a PR where we changed the wording of this setting to the following:

Do not allow Team Sync to re-invite past members to organizations that were removed by an organization owner

You or anyone else is welcome to open a PR updating the procedure accordingly. ⚡

[electron97]

Hey @lecoursen,

I started looking into this issue and I found that the issue is already resolved in https://github.com/github/docs/pull/27105. Could you please let me know if there is anything more needed here that is to be done? Otherwise I think we can close this issue as done.

Thanks!

[lecoursen]

I agree that this can be closed. By chance an internal contributor fixed this same thing in the meantime. Thanks for noticing!