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.

Simo.


_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to