From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 567C2692DC for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:22:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4D76E24801 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:21:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B4F26247F7 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:21:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8811346F6A for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:21:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <9ea78b7f-5d99-c9ab-2e3c-22bb01c35d61@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 09:21:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/99.0 Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220204142501.1461441-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <50f39747-1685-92d4-ae3e-5cfe5c288776@proxmox.com> <850588f1-aea9-d5fe-6419-c74ec655512d@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <850588f1-aea9-d5fe-6419-c74ec655512d@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.056 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control/manager v2] fix #3668: improving realm sync X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:22:05 -0000 On 23.03.22 08:33, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> remove-vanished: [];[];[acls] >>> >>> I.e., those three flags would replace your new mode + purge like: >>> >>> +--------+--------+---------------------+ >>> |=C2=A0 Mode=C2=A0 | Purge=C2=A0 | -> removed-vanished | >>> +--------+--------+---------------------+ >>> | update |=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0 | "" (none)=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 | >>> | sync=C2=A0=C2=A0 |=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0 | user=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 | >>> | full=C2=A0=C2=A0 |=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 0 | user;propertie= s=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 | >>> | update |=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 1 | acl=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= | >>> | sync=C2=A0=C2=A0 |=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 1 | acl;user=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 | >>> | full=C2=A0=C2=A0 |=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 1 | acl;user;prope= rties | >>> +--------+--------+---------------------+ >>> >>> 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 c= ombobox with all >>> the options spelled out. >>> >>> It's only slightly weird for acl, as there the "remove-vanished" some= what implies that >>> we import acl's in the first place, if we really don't want that we c= ould keep >>> "Purge ACLs" as separate option that is only enabled if "remove-vanis= hed" "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 're= move-vanished' >> implication for acls. Maybe 'remove-on-vanish' ? > sounds the same to me semantically, so see no improvement there. >=20 >> this would (semantically) decouple the 'vanished' thing from the 'remo= ved' thing, >> at least a little bit. > IMO purely subjective and if a real grammar/semantic connection would b= e there that > I just miss (always a possibility) it'd be to subtle. >=20 > I think that the confusion potential overall would get quite a bit redu= ced that getting > this slightly confusing one newly is still a net benefit and can be eas= ily defused with > a short docs note. >=20 FWIW, for a user interface we can also go for a more detailed, telling ap= proach, e.g., with both, field and box labels: Remove Vanished: Users [ ] Remove any realm-user not included in the sync response. ACLs [ ] Remove the ACLs of any realm-user not included in the sync= response. Properties [ ] Remove properties not included in the sync response. (more concise sentences welcome ;-)) For properties we could add a " Note: breaks, among other things, TFA." h= int as tooltip or just in the docs.