From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control/manager v2] fix #3668: improving realm sync
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:33:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <850588f1-aea9-d5fe-6419-c74ec655512d@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a33d85c1-158a-55e3-e920-55a3ff44d50c@proxmox.com>
On 22.03.22 16:23, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> On 3/22/22 14:44, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> On 22.03.22 07:11, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> On 04.02.22 15:24, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>>> this deprecates the 'full' sync option and replaces it with
>>>> a 'mode' option, where we add a third one that updates
>>>> the current users (while retaining their custom set attributes not
>>>> exisiting in the source) and removing users that don't exist anymore
>>>> in the source
>>>>
>>> I'm not yet 100% sure about the specific mode names, as sync normally means
>>> 100% sync, I'll see if I find some other tool (rsync?) with similar option naming
>>> problems. Independent from the specific names, this really needs a docs patch,
>>> ideally with a table listing the modi as rows and having the various "user added",
>>> "user removed", "properties added/updated", "properties removed" as columns, for a
>>> better understanding of the effects..
>>>
>> A thought (train): what we decide with this isn't what gets added/updated, that's
>> always the same, only what gets removed if vanished on the source, so maybe:
>>
>> remove-vanished: < none | user | user-and-properties >
>>
>> Or if we can actually also remove either user *or* group then: s/user/entity/ ?
>>
>> ps. the web interface should probably do a s/Purge/Purge ACLs/ too; or with that
>> in mind we could actually drop that do and have:
>>
>> remove-vanished: < none | user | user-and-properties | user-and-properties-and-acl >
>>
>> And with that, we could go the separate semicolon-endcoded-flag-list like we do for
>> some CT features (or mount options) IIRC:
>>
>> remove-vanished: [<user>];[<properties>];[acls]
>>
>> I.e., those three flags would replace your new mode + purge like:
>>
>> +--------+--------+---------------------+
>> | Mode | Purge | -> removed-vanished |
>> +--------+--------+---------------------+
>> | update | 0 | "" (none) |
>> | sync | 0 | user |
>> | full | 0 | user;properties |
>> | update | 1 | acl |
>> | sync | 1 | acl;user |
>> | full | 1 | acl;user;properties |
>> +--------+--------+---------------------+
>>
>> The selector for them could be either three check boxes on one line (similar to the
>> privilege level radio buttons from CT restore) or even a full blown combobox with all
>> the options spelled out.
>>
>> It's only slightly weird for acl, as there the "remove-vanished" somewhat implies that
>> we import acl's in the first place, if we really don't want that we could keep
>> "Purge ACLs" as separate option that is only enabled if "remove-vanished" "user" flag
>> is set, put IMO not _that_ of a big problem to understand compared to the status quo.
>>
>> Does (any of) this make sense to you?
>
> yes this sounds sensible, but i agree about the possibly confusing 'remove-vanished'
> implication for acls. Maybe 'remove-on-vanish' ?
sounds the same to me semantically, so see no improvement there.
> this would (semantically) decouple the 'vanished' thing from the 'removed' thing,
> at least a little bit.
IMO purely subjective and if a real grammar/semantic connection would be there that
I just miss (always a possibility) it'd be to subtle.
I think that the confusion potential overall would get quite a bit reduced that getting
this slightly confusing one newly is still a net benefit and can be easily defused with
a short docs note.
> in either case the docs would have to be updated anyway (as you already said)
>
> aside from that, i think line 4 in your table is not really practical,
> since it would remove the acls but leave the users ?
The user cannot do anything anymore (like auto-disable) but you still have a reference
to it and all its configured fields + TFA, either to re-enable it later or to check
contact info if one would investigate a specific task, so IMO its still practical for
setups that want to auto-disable but not auto-remove.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-23 7:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-04 14:24 Dominik Csapak
2022-02-04 14:24 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control v2 1/2] realm-sync: replace 'full' option with 'mode' Dominik Csapak
2022-02-04 14:25 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control v2 2/2] fix #3668: realm-sync: add mode 'sync' Dominik Csapak
2022-02-04 14:25 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH manager v2 1/1] ui: realm sync: replace 'full' with 'mode' Dominik Csapak
2022-03-22 6:11 ` [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control/manager v2] fix #3668: improving realm sync Thomas Lamprecht
2022-03-22 13:44 ` Thomas Lamprecht
2022-03-22 15:23 ` Dominik Csapak
2022-03-23 7:33 ` Thomas Lamprecht [this message]
2022-03-23 8:21 ` Thomas Lamprecht
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=850588f1-aea9-d5fe-6419-c74ec655512d@proxmox.com \
--to=t.lamprecht@proxmox.com \
--cc=d.csapak@proxmox.com \
--cc=pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox