Re: [Dev] [IAM] (IDENTITY-5948) Can't we do a better fix for this?

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Rushmin Fernando wrote: > Hi Johann, > > The fix handles the tenant scenario as well. > > Are you specifically talking about having different domain names for > tenants? > Yes. > > Best Regards, > Rushmin > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:59 PM,

Re: [Dev] [IAM] (IDENTITY-5948) Can't we do a better fix for this?

Hi Johann, The fix handles the tenant scenario as well. Are you specifically talking about having different domain names for tenants? Best Regards, Rushmin On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Johann Nallathamby wrote: > Hi Rushmin, > > I think the better, easier, uncomplicated

Re: [Dev] [IAM] (IDENTITY-5948) Can't we do a better fix for this?

Hi Rushmin, I think the better, easier, uncomplicated fix that also works for tenants will be to make this a text box with a default value instead of a label. Can we change the fix like that? Regards, Johann. On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Rushmin Fernando wrote: > Thank

Re: [Dev] [IAM] (IDENTITY-5948) Can't we do a better fix for this?

Thank you for pointing this out Johann. Actually, the code doesn't do anything specific to the super tenant. The issue is with method name 'updateSuperTenantIdpWithNewEPUrls' which is incorrect and misleading. It was my mistake :-( I just sent a PR [1] fixing the method name. @Darshana, could

[Dev] [IAM] (IDENTITY-5948) Can't we do a better fix for this?

IAM Folks, Can we do a better fix for this? I don't seem to agree with this fix. 1. We have written super tenant specific code. We shows that we treat super tenant differently and can be error prone. 2. The problem still remains for already created tenants. Another thing we need to address is