On 15.9.2014 17:21, Tomas Babej wrote:
Hi folks,
while developing parts of the upcoming views feature
(http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Migrating_existing_environments_to_Trust),
we stumbled upon the question of having descriptions required by the
framework.
There are arguments for the description being required, at least for
overriding attributes of IPA users. However, nothing stops irresponsible
admins from entering descriptions like 'foo'.
There is related ticket in the Trac:
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4387
I'd like to avoid having this argument over again. Can we establish a
guideline we wish to follow? Having tickets like #4387 and requiring
descriptions in new features is too inconsistent for my taste :) we
should either:
1.) Define a clear line - when it makes sense to require description and
when not.
2.) Decide never to require description, since it is a non-enforcible
requirement (nothing stops you from entering meaningless description).
Description is a helper tool for users and it's not required for any
functionality. Ideally user (company policy) should choose whether it
should be required. We should only give recommendations, e.g., in
documentation.
Making it configurable seems like a lot of effort with little added value.
I'm for #2.
Btw, idview plugin is inconsistent by itself atm - overrides have it
required but idview doesn't.
my 2c
--
Petr Vobornik
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
