On 05/30/2014 03:32 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 30.5.2014 15:24, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 05/30/2014 08:37 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 05/29/2014 08:14 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 05/29/2014 08:39 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 09:43 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 05/29/2014 05:31 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 05/26/2014 01:49 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 05/23/2014 04:55 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:13 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
This, I believe, has already been covered, but I'm concerned
with the
(over)use of active/inactive in this discussion.
I think use of "inactive" and "active" to describe users
might be
confusing since there is already an account enable/disable
command.
This
on top of unlock, are there now 3 possible boolean states a
user can
be
in? locked/unlocked, enabled/disabled, active/inactive, plus
deleted/active and staged/active?
Agree, we should only have "ipa user-unstage <username>" and not
call
this operations with words like active/inactive.
User's in the staging area are not inactive, they are *not*
users yet in
the first place.
Simo.
Ok. Let us consolidate the decisions, I think we are now running
in circles.
Let me start from Petr3's API proposal which was a functionally
complete
proposal and start from there:
On 05/22/2014 10:47 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
...
My proposal would be that the move commands use the verb for the
target
and an
option for the source, and add/mod use an option for the
container:
1) adding a new user
(to active) ipa user-add tuser ...
(to stage) ipa user-add tuser --staged ...
Ok.
(to deleted) ipa user-add tuser --deleted ... (*)
Not needed.
2) moving to main
(from stage) ipa user-activate tuser (**)
(from del) ipa user-activate tuser --deleted
We need both, alternative is Simo's proposal:
ipa user-unstage
ipa user-undelete
I personally like unstage and undelete commands, I would go with
those.
Sorry for coming late to the party.
I strongly do not like "unstage"
This suggests that the user will be removed from staged but does
not indicate
that the full user will be created.
As I suggested elsewhere provision-user or user-provision (or may
be even
user-add --from-stage) would be better.
As Petr3 already noted on 05/19/2014 03:19 PM, integrating
unstaging operation
could get messy and would not create the right API. Using a
separate call would
be cleaner. As we see, choosing the right action term has proven
very difficult
- everyone has strong opinion on the command name :-)
I already saw user-activate and user-unstage to be trashed so I am
thinking
what we are left with. I am still fan of user-unstage,
user-provision is not
telling me much more than user-unstage.
3) moving to deleted
(from active) ipa user-del tuser
Ok.
(from stage) ipa user-del tuser --staged
IMO staged deleted users should not be moved to deleted
container, but simply
permanently deleted. As Simo noted, staged user are not real
users, just
incomplete users.
4) moving to stage
(from active) ipa user-stage tuser
This was suggested for completeness.
I think we are cutting corners but I would not insist here.
(from del) ipa user-stage tuser --deleted
None of the commands are needed for the basic workflow.
But this is a valid use case. I created a user, deleted it and
want to rebuild
it becuase something got corrupted in the original entry. I agree
it is not a
primary use case but then we should have a ticket to track this
RFE for
future.
This was not about cutting corners, this was about what operation
makes sense
and what we should support. Stage was defined as a tree with
incomplete user,
thus this proposal - Simo was not very OK with this workflow.
5) modifying
(in active) ipa user-mod tuser ...
Ok.
(in stage) ipa user-mod tuser --staged ...
Simo did not like this command, I would personally add it. As
long as we have
"ipa user-add --staged", we should also have an option to delete
and modify
user in staged area.
(in del) ipa user-mod tuser --deleted ...
Not needed.
Is this acceptable for everyone? If yes, the next step would be
for Thierry
to update the design page with new proposals.
Martin
Let me try to consolidate again the proposals and changes for the
workflow&API
we have so far:
1) Manipulating staged users
- staged users must have UID RDN
- UID uniqueness plugin should not be enforcing in staging area
- we do not want it in user plugin as it requires different
parameters and
objectclasses
- API:
ipa stage-user-add
ipa stage-user-mod
ipa stage-user-find
ipa stage-user-del
2) Activating staged user
- activation will not do MODRDN, it will create a new user in
active container
and then delete the old one (to create right structural objectclass
set)
- for now, we need to allow operator delete any user in staged and
add any user
in active tree
- API
ipa stage-user-activate
- other options mentioned in the past were user-unstage and
user-activate
3) Manipulating deleted users
- deletion and undeletion will do MODRDN and will use the ACI that
Thierry
implemented
- API
ipa user-del
ipa user-undel OR ipa user-undelete
- Dmitri mentioned that he would like to see the move from deleted
to staged. I
would do it via flag:
ipa user-undel --to-stage
Does that look better now? Thanks,
Yes, although I do not see the need for --to-stage honestly.
I agree we can just leave it as a future ticket.
I think Simo's thoughts were different - he did not opposed to this
part
because it is too much work (it shouldn't be), but because he did not
want that
part of the workflow. Given the simplicity of this part, I see 2
options:
1) Do it and do it together with other API is it just one MODRDN
command
2) Decide we do not want to do it, i.e. do not file any RFE
Rest looks OK.
It should be fine, just one command could done differently to confine
it better
as per Honza's idea:
ipa stageduser-add --from-deleted username
Do we want that to take all of stageduser-add's options?
Should we use somrthing like stageduser-undel instead?
stageduser-undel suggests it's opposite of stageduser-del, which it is
not. An alternative would be something like
stageduser-add-from-deleted, but that's really long, hence my proposal
to use stageduser-add.
I have also a preference for '--from-deleted' option rather than a new
verb. IMHO 'Delete' -> 'Stage' would be a quite rare and using an option
shows that it is a special case.
Regarding generate attribute, Delete users have final unique value
(ipaUniqueID, uidNumber..) should we return the values to standard
"staging" values ('autogenerate', -1) ? I believe yes.
Also a Deleted user is booking an ipaUniqueID/uidNumber value, so an
other active entry can not use these values. If we move that user out of
the scope of attribute uniqueness, an other staging entry may pick up
these values. Is it a risk ?
For example, if on a machine I authenticate with entry A that contains
values identical from old entry B, may I get the entry B authorisations
on an other machine (where deletion of entry B has not yet occur) ?
Thierry, you know what to do :-)
Martin
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
