Dne 5.8.2015 v 11:55 thierry bordaz napsal(a):
On 08/05/2015 11:27 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "thierry bordaz" <tbor...@redhat.com>
To: "Jan Cholasta" <jchol...@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 5:34:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Freeipa-devel] Replace stageuser-add --from-delete with
On 07/28/2015 12:34 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 28.7.2015 v 11:36 Lenka Doudova napsal(a):
Dne 28.7.2015 v 11:27 Jan Cholasta napsal(a):
Dne 27.7.2015 v 17:59 Martin Basti napsal(a):
On 23/07/15 14:43, Martin Basti wrote:
I tried to fix #5145 and I partially succeeded.
However, I cannot fix this part of ticket, where user is prompted to
write name and surname.
$ ipa stageuser-add tuser --from-delete
First name: this will be ignored
Last name: this will be also ignored
Added stage user "tuser"
As the first name and last name are mandatory attributes of
stageuser-add command, but they are not needed by when the
--from-delete option is used.
I would like to ask how to fix this issue, IMO this will be huge
in internal API. Or should we just document this bug as known issue
(thierry wrote that this is not use case that should be used often)?
The best solution would be separate command, but this idea was
rejected in thread "[Freeipa-devel] User life cycle: question
regarding the design"
as was mentioned before, we have issue with current internal API
stageuser-add --from-delete command.
We discussed this today, and we did not find a nice way how to fix
so we propose this (which is IMO the best solution):
* stageuser-add --from-delete should be deprecated
* create new option for user-undel: used-undel --to-staged (or
new command) that will handle moving deleted users to staged area as
Make it new command please.
Instead of stageuser-add and option --from-delete, which work totally
different, the command user-undel does similar operation than
--from-delete, it just uses different container.
NACK on stuffing everything into a single command just because it does
How about making it a 'stageuser-undel'? The 'user-undel' moves
preserved user to active, so the 'stageuser-undel' would move preserved
to staged. The action is similar, but has slightly different specifics
(which attributes are preserved etc.), and for me the 'stageuser-undel'
feels more natural than 'user-undel --to-staged' since it's basically
the same as there is 'stageuser-add' for creating a staged user, not
'user-add --to-staged'. It would be in the same style as all the other
commands concerning operations with users in staged container.
Well, user-undel is the opposite of user-del, and stageuser-undel
should be the opposite of stageuser-del. The stageuser-undel you are
suggesting is not.
Also I'm not sure if we want to (always) remove the deleted user once
a staged user is created from it, but -undel behaves like that.
I don't think the command should be limited to deleted users only.
Active and deleted users share the same namespace, so it is an
preserved users has been valid active user. In that sense
active/preserved are managed by a same set of CLI
(user-find,user-del,user-show) because a preserved user is a 'user'. So
I would vote for continuing with a 'user-*' commands and use 'user-undel
But then if we will make any incompatible change between "user-undel"
and "user-undel --to-stage" we may hit this issue again. I agree with
Honza, this should be a separate command.
What do you mean 'incompatible change' ?
--to-stage option would only select a different container that the
'Active' one ?
That's not sufficient. The command should do the reverse of
stageuser-activate, which is ADD and DELETE, possibly with some
modifications of the entry between them, not MODRDN like user-undel does.
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code