[pve-devel] [PATCH access-control/manager v2] fix #3668: improving realm sync

[Dominik Csapak]

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' ?
this would (semantically) decouple the 'vanished' thing from the 'removed' thing,
at least a little bit.
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 ?

we could enable the 'acl' checkbox only when the 'users' checkbox is active,
similar to what you suggested