Suresh,
I like the distinction between individual and community accounts. I think scenario #4 is the scenario that we discussed on Monday and said we wouldn't support that right away. So the way this might look in pga_config.php would be 'community-account-role-name' => 'gateway-user', (this replaces 'user-role-name') 'individual-account-role-name' => 'campus-user' ________________________________ From: Suresh Marru <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:38 AM To: Airavata Dev Subject: Re: Personal compute/storage preferences for campus portals 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 3:38 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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). 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
