Not sure- I'm afraid that an "any" that was only good at one point in time might be a little more confusing than useful as more accounts are added.
What about bypassing the association check if a user is associated with a special group? Thanks M On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Danny Auble <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry Michael, nothing like that exists today. > > I don't think this would be something easy to implement either. Each account > would need a new association so if you added a new account there would need > to be logic to pull this user into that account as well. There just isn't > anything like that there today. > > An easy, solution could be to have a special account name like your "any" > there and it would fill in all the accounts like you would want, but it > would only handle already existing accounts. If this seems like a good idea > I could put it on the wish list. > > Danny > > > On 04/30/2014 09:22 AM, Michael Gutteridge wrote: >> >> I'm setting up account associations (Slurm 2.6.2). I have a number of >> users who are principally "service providers" for other groups and >> thus are allowed to run jobs in any account. >> >> I know I can do this: >> >> sacctmgr add user alice accounts=this,that,other,... >> >> With all the accounts listed, but as I've got a few hundred accounts >> this command might get a little ugly. I'd prefer something like: >> >> sacctmgr add user alice accounts=any ... >> >> Is there anything like that? >> >> Thanks much >> >> Michael -- Hey! Somebody punched the foley guy! - Crow, MST3K ep. 508
