On 08/12/2015 02:47 PM, Tomas Capek wrote:
We cannot change commands that already exist, it would be more pain
On 12/08/15 14:22, Martin Basti wrote:
On 08/12/2015 02:08 PM, Tomas Capek wrote:
On 12/08/15 13:15, David Kupka wrote:
On 12/08/15 12:45, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 08/12/2015 12:35 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 08/11/2015 10:40 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
We had discussion off-list discussion, and result is following
On 08/11/2015 09:32 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
So my understanding is that you think a new verb should be
On 11/08/15 09:17, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 5.8.2015 12:34, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 08/05/2015 12:13 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
That is a good point. Do we need to modify anything from a
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
On 07/28/2015 12:34 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 28.7.2015 v 11:36 Lenka Doudova napsal(a):
Well, user-undel is the opposite of user-del, and
Dne 28.7.2015 v 11:27 Jan Cholasta napsal(a):
How about making it a 'stageuser-undel'? The
preserved user to active, so the 'stageuser-undel' would
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
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
stageuser-add command, but they are not needed by
--from-delete option is used.
I would like to ask how to fix this issue, IMO this will
in internal API. Or should we just document this bug
(thierry wrote that this is not use case that should
The best solution would be separate command, but this
rejected in thread "[Freeipa-devel] User life cycle:
regarding the design"
as was mentioned before, we have issue with current
stageuser-add --from-delete command.
We discussed this today, and we did not find a nice
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
new command) that will handle moving deleted users to
Make it new command please.
Instead of stageuser-add and option --from-delete,
different, the command user-undel does similar
--from-delete, it just uses different container.
NACK on stuffing everything into a single command just
to staged. The action is similar, but has slightly
(which attributes are preserved etc.), and for me the
feels more natural than 'user-undel --to-staged' since it's
the same as there is 'stageuser-add' for creating a staged
'user-add --to-staged'. It would be in the same style as
commands concerning operations with users in staged
should be the opposite of stageuser-del. The stageuser-undel
suggesting is not.
Also I'm not sure if we want to (always) remove the deleted
a staged user is created from it, but -undel behaves like
I don't think the command should be limited to deleted users
Active and deleted users share the same namespace, so it
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
I would vote for continuing with a 'user-*' commands and use
But then if we will make any incompatible change between
and "user-undel --to-stage" we may hit this issue again. I
Honza, this should be a separate command.
What do you mean 'incompatible change' ?
--to-stage option would only select a different container
'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
to a add it in the stage container.
Already delete entry have been purged of several values
keys, membership,..) do you think of other attributes to
IIRC the use case is a support engineer who activated too
entry. So you are right he wants to unactivate it. A question
the unactivation requires more modifications than the one did by
'user-del --preserve'. Note that we can not retrieve the
values when the entry was activated from stage.
I don't know if any modifications are needed ATM (doesn't mean
there can't be any in the future), but the point is that if
creating object A from object B using operation X, you should be
creating object B from object A using the reverse of operation X,
otherwise there *will* be inconsistencies, and we don't want
I agree with this
allow: 'Active' -> 'Stage'
I do not recall why this was not discussed or if it as already been
I like the idea and I think it could be useful to Support Engineer.
Now I am not sure we want to make 'easy' the action to
user (currently it requires two operations).
In your opinion, does it replace 'stageuser-add --from-delete' or
'user-undel --to-stage' ? or is it an additional subcommand.
Also, activate/unactivate is not a NULL operation. Some values has
been changed (uid,gid,uniqueuiid...) and some values will be lost
About the verb, this is not because the previous action is
that we should use 'unactivate'. For example, Thomas raised the
that after 'user-del', 'user-restore' would have been more user
friendly than 'user-undel'
* remove 'stageuser-add --from-delete'
* add new command: 'user-stage'
the user-stage command will move both deleted or active users to
$ user-stage <deleted_user>
replaces the stage-user --from-delete, keeps the same behavior
$ user-stage <active_user>
this is stretch goal, nice to have, but I don't know how easy is to
For better visualization, here is link to our board screen
Thierry, do you agree with this?
I really like the idea (as well as the drawing) of having the same
for both active/deleted user.
About the exact verb 'user-stage', I am always bad at this
it would be great to have Thomas ack on that.
Just a question about the other verbs user-disable/user-enable. I
they are doing something different but do you think there is a
confusion for admin when he should do user-stage or user-disable ?
Adding Tomas to the loop.
I probably don't have all the information and perhaps cannot see
all possible side effects but on the handover session for this
feature, I was concerned that some commands did not match in GUI and
in CLI (restore, undel).
Also, from the UX perspective, I thought it would be more friendly
to have symmetrical commands and not confuse users with two delete
modes as in "do you want to mock-delete the user or delete delete it?"
Therefore, I proposed to have two simple pairs of commands, also
reflected in the UI:
"add" and "delete" - for just adding and completely removing users
"retire" and "restore" - for just putting a user to or taking it out
of the user "archive"
Sounds good, but we will not change all commands.
Sure, I made this proposal only for the user lifecycle feature.
Perhaps some commands could be aliases if it would make it easier to
I guess it depends on whether the user is aware of the lifecycle
feature as the stage would be implied even if some users start as active.
as for the "--from-delete" option , I think the proposed
"user-stage" overlaps a little with the existing "stageuser-*"
commands. As the command would move a user to the initial state of
the lifecycle, be it an active or retired user, I'd try to emphasize
the fact by proposing a similar but perhaps more cogent "user-restage".
How about case, when user was created via 'user-add', then
'user-restage' may confuse users, because that user hasn't been in
Do you think it would work?
But we could add to the symmetry of the commands:
*add - delete* (manipulates active or staged users)
**activate - deactivate* *(between staged and active users)*
retire - restore* (between active and archived users)
*retire - restage *(between staged and archived users)
Admittedly, both of the cases in the last pair seem weird and rare to
be used. But if the "retire" action ultimately remains undefined for
staged users, I think it would still be fine as "restage" pushes a
user through two states back :-)
And I'm quite lost in what you wrote. We have user-* and stageuser-* commads
Also, if we have the "deactivate" action for active users, I'd try to
make it clear what are the practical differences between "retire" and
"deactivate" in this setup.
deactivate: user-del --preserve
retire: planned user-stage (active user)
restore: user-undel (applies only to users)
restage: planned user-stage (deleted user)
staged->archived user: N/A
IRC Nick: tcapek
Team name: Customer Content Services (CCS)
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code