On 05/22/2014 07:21 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 17:52 +0200, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 05/22/2014 04:38 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 05/22/2014 10:47 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 05/21/2014 10:00 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 05/19/2014 10:45 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 05/19/2014 04:44 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 19.5.2014 16:34, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 05/19/2014 04:22 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 19.5.2014 16:03, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 05/19/2014 03:54 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 19.5.2014 15:19, Petr Viktorin wrote:
Hello list,
Here's a conversation that started internally. I'm making it

On 05/19/2014 01:00 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 05/19/2014 08:25 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 05/19/2014 08:24 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 05/16/2014 04:48 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
Hello Martin,

       I am getting familiar with the freeipa CLI code and
       implemented '--to-stage' and '--from-stage'. This
really an
       impressive set of code :-)
Great! :-)

       I completed 'to-stage' and testing '--from-stage'.

       I have a question regarding the '--from-stage' syntax.
is a
       mandatory argument to 'user-add' subcommand. In the
design the
       '--from-stage' option is described with:

           ipa user-add --from-stage=tuser
Note, the design is here:

       But as 'uid' is mandatory the command should rather be

           ipa user-add tuser --from-stage=tuser

       In that case the option value for '--from-stage' is not
required and
       the command should be

           ipa user-add tuser --from-stage

       Is that ok if I implement the command like above or did I
       something ?

Hmm, no, I think you are right.  We can change --from-stage to
parameter. When it is true, it'd mean that get_dn or
retrieve the record from stage and use all it's attributes (and
default attributes values on top of that).

Also CC-ing Petr Viktorin for reference.
This operation can't change the user's attributes, can it?
I.e., we
support something like:
       ipa user-add tuser --from-stage --phone=123456789
If this is the case, what's the reason for using user-add for
Wouldn't it
be better to make this a separate command, say:
       ipa user-activate tuser
       ipa user-activate tuser --from-deleted
       ipa user-activate tuser --from-deleted --to-staged
+1, I would even go as far as having separate commands for staged
deleted users, e.g.:

      ipa user-unstage tuser
      ipa user-undelete tuser
      ipa user-undelete tuser --to-staged
A deleted entry has already been active so it contains already set
attributes while the pure staged entries are "almost" empty boxes.
from an administrator point of view, both staged/deleted entries are
inactive. What would be the advantages of two separated commands ?
You just said it yourself: activating/unstaging a user is quite
different from undeleting a user. Cramming multiple different
operations in a single command is bad design IMHO.
Ok I understand.
I believe that deleted entries and staged entries will be in the same
container (provisioning).
The design page mentions "cn=staged
users,cn=accounts,cn=provisioning,$SUFFIX" and "cn=deleted
users,cn=accounts,cn=provisioning,$SUFFIX", which are two different
Oppsss.. Sorry for the confusion :-[
So we may have at least those two possibilities:

    * ipa user-activate tuser [--from-staging|--from-delete]
    * ipa user-unstage tuser
      ipa user-undelete tuser
I like the idea of different verbs for different hives.
Something like:

Adding directly to stage via CLI: ipa user-stage
Removing from stage: user-unstage (user is gone)
Stage to Main -> activate; <- deactivate
Main to delete -> del; <-restore or undelete
Delete to stage -> I think we can use ipa user-stage command with
--deleted=user or similar
To be honest, I don't like this idea.
Too many names are confusing, if we can find a consistent option to cut the
number of names down we should do it.
IMO This is the worst part of Git:
http://assets.osteele.com/images/2008/git-transport.png . We can do better.

Another good thing would be if options did not affect the applicability of
other options (too much). For example in your proposal there'd be something 
      ipa user-stage tuser --first=abc --last=xyz --phone=123 ......
      ipa user-stage --deleted=tuser  # <no attribute options allowed>
We should avoid this, if only for the reason that it makes the help text

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 ...
(to deleted)  ipa user-add tuser --deleted ...  (*)

2) moving to main
(from stage)  ipa user-activate tuser  (**)
(from del)    ipa user-activate tuser --deleted

3) moving to deleted
(from active) ipa user-del tuser
(from stage)  ipa user-del tuser --staged

4) moving to stage
(from active) ipa user-stage tuser
(from del)    ipa user-stage tuser --deleted

5) modifying
(in active)   ipa user-mod tuser ...
(in stage)    ipa user-mod tuser --staged ...
(in del)      ipa user-mod tuser --deleted ...

Five commands (two of which are user-specific), plus two fairly consistent

If the delete container isn't configured, the --deleted option is illegal and
`user-del` deletes permanently.

(*) may be useful in some situations?
I personally cannot imagine such situation - I would not add this command. If
somebody needs that, he can workaround with

ipa user-add tuser --staged
ipa user-del tuser --staged

... and report us the use case when it's needed. But I general, Petr's proposal
makes sense to me, I would go for it. (and update the design as Dmitri
correctly proposed).


Freeipa-devel mailing list

     I will update the design following Petr proposal. Great one !
     However I was thinking to a sligthly different proposal.  For
     example if we have 3 states: staging, active, inactive.
     1) adding a user

         (...to active) ipa user-add# ( after the command
         ipaUniqueID=<final value>)
         (... to staging) ipa user-add --stage# (after the command

         So here we can not add a user directly into inactive state

     2) activating the user

         (staging to active)   ipa user-activate# (after the command
         ipaUniqueID=<final value>)
         (inactive to active)  ipa user-activate --inactive# (after the
         command ipaUniqueID=<final value>)

     3) inactivate the user

         (active to inactive)  ipa user-inactivate# (after the command
         ipaUniqueID=<final value>)

         Here there is no possibility to move back an active entry to
         staging, because in staging
         the entries do not have ipaUniqueID set
Do we ever want to allow to move a user from active to staging ?

I can't find a case where my answer is yes.

 From my POV a user once it leaves staging is either active or deleted,
in my mind there is no reason ever to move a user into staging.

In what case does it make sense ?


Hi Simo,

When moving an entry 'staging' -> 'active', some attributes are set (at least uidNumber,gidNumber, ipaUniqueId). In my mind, those attributes are set for ever even if later the entry is moved 'active'->'deleted'. One can imagine that an administrator is not "happy" with the values computed. For example, he would prefer uidNumber to be computed from an other range. For that, moving back the entry from 'active' -> 'staging' would be an option (if those attributes are 'reset').

I do not know if it is a valid use case but IMHO I would prefere he moves the entry 'active'->'delete' then delete the entry and recreate a new one.

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to