Hi Fabrice, Thanks for the feedback. I dont know if you can force-skip the cla-bot check. After all the commit was just pulling in upstream changes... so if we can merge as-is, im fine with that. After all, its basically a no-op commit.
Cheers! On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 12:03 AM Durand fabrice <fdur...@inverse.ca> wrote: > Hello Diego, > > your PR is really appreciate !! > > I did a quick check and i am not sure i can do something on my side to fix > the CLA-Bot since it's in your repo. > > The 2 things i see are that > https://docs.github.com/en/github/committing-changes-to-your-project/why-are-my-commits-linked-to-the-wrong-user#commits-are-not-linked-to-any-user > or merge it as is. > > I will ask my coworker tomorrow. > > Regards > > Fabrice > > > > The other way can maybe to recreate a PR > Le 21-03-16 à 19 h 31, Diego Garcia del Rio a écrit : > > Hello everyone, > > I have a PR open since around a month now where I added better support for > the different authentication mechanisms that ruckus offers, as well as > quite a bit of documentation on how to use the RBAC (role-based > assigning of ACLs and rate limits) when using both smartzone and > zoneDirector controllers for ruckus, > > I also cleaned up the webService API calls done to the ruckus controller > so as to support both HTTP and HTTPS with their corresponding ports (http > so as to allow for easier troubleshooting when things arent working). I > also added support for the "username" in the API call which is mandatory if > using SmartZone in multi-tenant mode (and I guess it should make this > compatible with ruckus cloud ) > > In particular, ruckus has so many different modes of operation (radius > local vs proxy-radius with and without WISPR portal on the AP) that things > are bound to get confusing. For example, if you're using a remove SmartZone > controller, while having packetfence locally installed on-prem, the proxy > mode for RADIUS might not be workable as you would have to open port 1812 > on your external connection (and you might not even have a static ip!) So > in those cases, while authentication is done through radius, the de-auth is > done through http/rest API. I added support for forcing the de-auth method > if needed and have been testing it succesfully lately. > > I noticed there is ongoing work for DPSK support for ruckus and I have > already integrated those changes in my PR but I havent been able to test > them yet. > > my PR is available here: > https://github.com/inverse-inc/packetfence/pull/6141 > > The only issue I have is that when pulling the upstream changes to the > whole trunk, I accidentally kept one commit as "root" rather than "garci66" > so the CLA-Bot is complaining... if someone has an "easy" idea on how to > fix that.. I'd REALLY appreciate it. > > I can imagine things are quite busy with inverse being acquired but I > would really appreciate if anyone has some cycles to take a look -and > ideally approve- the PR. > > I have access to a lot of ruckus gear and can help test / troubleshoot > more complex scenarios if needed. > > > Best Regards, > Diego > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PacketFence-devel mailing > listPacketFencefirstname.lastname@example.org://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-devel > > _______________________________________________ > PacketFence-devel mailing list > PacketFenceemail@example.com > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-devel >
_______________________________________________ PacketFence-devel mailing list PacketFencefirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-devel