[Freeipa-devel] User life cycle: question regarding the design

[Dmitri Pal]

On 05/29/2014 08:39 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 09:43 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 05/29/2014 05:31 AM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>> On 05/26/2014 01:49 AM, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>>> On 05/23/2014 04:55 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 10:13 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>>>>>> This, I believe, has already been covered, but I'm concerned with the
>>>>>> (over)use of active/inactive in this discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think use of "inactive" and "active" to describe users might be
>>>>>> confusing since there is already an account enable/disable command.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> on top of unlock, are there now 3 possible boolean states a user can
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> in? locked/unlocked, enabled/disabled, active/inactive, plus
>>>>>> deleted/active and staged/active?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agree, we should only have "ipa user-unstage <username>" and not call
>>>>> this operations with words like active/inactive.
>>>>>
>>>>> User's in the staging area are not inactive, they are *not* users yet in
>>>>> the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simo.
>>>>>
>>>> Ok. Let us consolidate the decisions, I think we are now running in circles.
>>>> Let me start from Petr3's API proposal which was a functionally complete
>>>> proposal and start from there:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/22/2014 10:47 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> My proposal would be that the move commands use the verb for the target and an
>>>>> option for the source, and add/mod use an option for the container:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) adding a new user
>>>>> (to active)   ipa user-add tuser ...
>>>>> (to stage)    ipa user-add tuser --staged ...
>>>> Ok.
>>>>
>>>>> (to deleted)  ipa user-add tuser --deleted ...  (*)
>>>> Not needed.
>>>>
>>>>> 2) moving to main
>>>>> (from stage)  ipa user-activate tuser  (**)
>>>>> (from del)    ipa user-activate tuser --deleted
>>>> We need both, alternative is Simo's proposal:
>>>>
>>>> ipa user-unstage
>>>> ipa user-undelete
>>>>
>>>> I personally like unstage and undelete commands, I would go with those.
>>> Sorry for coming late to the party.
>>> I strongly do not like "unstage"
>>> This suggests that the user will be removed from staged but does not indicate
>>> that the full user will be created.
>>> As I suggested elsewhere provision-user or user-provision (or may be even
>>> user-add --from-stage) would be better.
>> As Petr3 already noted on 05/19/2014 03:19 PM, integrating unstaging operation
>> could get messy and would not create the right API. Using a separate call would
>> be cleaner. As we see, choosing the right action term has proven very difficult
>> - everyone has strong opinion on the command name :-)
>>
>> I already saw user-activate and user-unstage to be trashed so I am thinking
>> what we are left with. I am still fan of user-unstage, user-provision is not
>> telling me much more than user-unstage.
>>
>>>>> 3) moving to deleted
>>>>> (from active) ipa user-del tuser
>>>> Ok.
>>>>
>>>>> (from stage)  ipa user-del tuser --staged
>>>> IMO staged deleted users should not be moved to deleted container, but simply
>>>> permanently deleted. As Simo noted, staged user are not real users, just
>>>> incomplete users.
>>>>
>>>>> 4) moving to stage
>>>>> (from active) ipa user-stage tuser
>>>
>>> This was suggested for completeness.
>>> I think we are cutting corners but I would not insist here.
>>>
>>>>> (from del)    ipa user-stage tuser --deleted
>>>> None of the commands are needed for the basic workflow.
>>> But this is a valid use case. I created a user, deleted it and want to rebuild
>>> it becuase something got corrupted in the original entry. I agree it is not a
>>> primary use case but then we should have a ticket to track this RFE for future.
>> This was not about cutting corners, this was about what operation makes sense
>> and what we should support. Stage was defined as a tree with incomplete user,
>> thus this proposal - Simo was not very OK with this workflow.
>>
>>>>> 5) modifying
>>>>> (in active)   ipa user-mod tuser ...
>>>> Ok.
>>>>
>>>>> (in stage)    ipa user-mod tuser --staged ...
>>>> Simo did not like this command, I would personally add it. As long as we have
>>>> "ipa user-add --staged", we should also have an option to delete and modify
>>>> user in staged area.
>>>>
>>>>> (in del)      ipa user-mod tuser --deleted ...
>>>> Not needed.
>>>>
>>>> Is this acceptable for everyone? If yes, the next step would be for Thierry
>>>> to update the design page with new proposals.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>> Let me try to consolidate again the proposals and changes for the workflow&API
>> we have so far:
>>
>> 1) Manipulating staged users
>> - staged users must have UID RDN
>> - UID uniqueness plugin should not be enforcing in staging area
>> - we do not want it in user plugin as it requires different parameters and
>> objectclasses
>> - API:
>> ipa stage-user-add
>> ipa stage-user-mod
>> ipa stage-user-find
>> ipa stage-user-del
>>
>> 2) Activating staged user
>> - activation will not do MODRDN, it will create a new user in active container
>> and then delete the old one (to create right structural objectclass set)
>> - for now, we need to allow operator delete any user in staged and add any user
>> in active tree
>> - API
>> ipa stage-user-activate
>> - other options mentioned in the past were user-unstage and user-activate
>>
>> 3) Manipulating deleted users
>> - deletion and undeletion will do MODRDN and will use the ACI that Thierry
>> implemented
>> - API
>> ipa user-del
>> ipa user-undel OR ipa user-undelete
>> - Dmitri mentioned that he would like to see the move from deleted to staged. I
>> would do it via flag:
>> ipa user-undel --to-stage
>>
>>
>> Does that look better now? Thanks,
> Yes, although I do not see the need for --to-stage honestly.
I agree we can just leave it as a future ticket.
Rest looks OK.


>
> Simo.
>
>


-- 
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager IdM portfolio
Red Hat, Inc.