Hi Marcus, I do not have any creative name suggestions, but have general thoughts on the topic.
We have two types of accounts - individual accounts and community accounts and two types of allocations, again individual and community (gateway). The possibilities of job submission and data movement are: 1 - individual accounts with no allocation (most campuses employ this approach and let fair share take care of equitable distribution) 2 - individual accounts using individual allocation (XSEDE like shared infrastructure and some campuses) 3 - community accounts using community allocation 4 - community accounts using individual allocations (xsede power users who have added community account to their allocations). After reading through this thread, seems like your changes will enable 1, 2 and 4. I initially thought this will only target 1 and 2 scenarios. But the same backend logic can serve scenario 4 as well. But as you state, the usability issues are the key. For scenario 4, we probably should present a smaller form with subset of the fields (probably just the allocation/project number). I agree that resource_owner will be misleading. How about longer and self descriptive names so there is no disambiguation: “community_accounts” - the default option (assumes community allocations) — users will not be presented with any resource level settings “individual_accounts” - this can cover both allocation and no allocation scenarios but using individual accounts. “community_account_individual_allocation” - just the project number field for scenario 4. Again, not creative thoughts, so please feel free to ignore. Suresh > On Oct 11, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Christie, Marcus Aaron <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > Yes. Today when a user logs in they see a dashboard with "Browse Projects" > and "Browse Experiments" buttons. The idea is, if the use has this new role > they will see another row of buttons, "Compute Resources", "Storage > Resources" and "Credential Store". > > 'resource_owner' sounds to me like someone who actually owns or manages a > resource instead of someone who merely has an allocation or account on a > resource. But that's just what it sounds like to my ear. What do others on > the list think? > > Thanks, > > Marcus > > > From: Miller, Mark <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 3:38 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Personal compute/storage preferences for campus portals > > Hi Marcus, this sounds quite interesting. Do you mean that only users with > this role will see the tabs for adding resource in their UI? > Would the title of resource_owner be descriptive? > > Mark > > > <> > From: Christie, Marcus Aaron [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Personal compute/storage preferences for campus portals > > Hello All, > > I don't think I've written to this list yet, so let me introduce myself. My > name is Marcus Christie and I work in the Science Gateways Group at IU with > Suresh and other Airavata developers. I'm looking forward to contributing to > Airavata. > > I'm currently working on creating a UI in PGA for a portal user to add their > own compute and/or storage resource allocations > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-2117 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRAVATA-2117>). I recently met with > Suresh and Eroma to discuss some UI concerns with how this will impact > existing users of PGA that are today using the gateways allocation. The > problem is it could be confusing for users who don't have their own > compute/storage allocations to see the new options in PGA for adding > compute/storage allocations. Also there are some additional UI concerns if a > user has both the option to use a gateway allocation on a compute resource > and also their own personal allocation (for example, when creating an > experiment, does the user have two options for the compute resource, one with > their own allocation and one with the gateway allocation?) > > What we decided to do, at least for now, is to add a new role, similar to the > gateway user role ("gateway-user"), that if a user has this new role then > they can add their own compute/storage resource allocations. Also, if they > have this new role they can only submit jobs to compute resource for which > they have registered their own resource allocation. > > I'm not quite sure what to call the new role. In the meeting we referred to > this new role as a "campus user" role, since that is the use case we are > targeting. That doesn't seem generic enough of a name, is there a better name > to give to this role? I'm thinking about adding to pga_config.php: > > 'personal-allocation-user-role-name' => 'campus-user' > > I'm open to suggestions on the name of the role. > > Thanks, > > Marcus > > >
