action #68702
closedcoordination #6558: [epic] add/edit/remove users
Add UI support for removing users
0%
Description
Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago
- Copied to action #68705: Add webAPI support for removing users added
Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago
Hi, please only use "Blocked" with an assignee that tracks the blocker and also make sure the blocker is obvious. What do you feel this ticket is blocked by?
Updated by livdywan almost 4 years ago
I expect #68705 has to be implemented first since that would be used to implement the UI.
Updated by ilausuch almost 4 years ago
https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/3247
I think I implemented both at the same time
Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago
- Status changed from Blocked to In Progress
- Assignee set to okurz
ok, you can track the ticket as assignee then. And as described in before the status "Blocked" is not good without an obvious reason but now "In Progress" matches.
Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago
- Assignee changed from okurz to ilausuch
oops, that should have been ilausuch :)
Updated by okurz almost 4 years ago
The current PR https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/3247 now should aim for deleting the user when there are no relations pending in the DB . As a followup we could consider https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/3247#issuecomment-659453683 and ensure the user can be deleted in these cases as well and replace the references in DB accordingly. But I actually opt for even not doing that to keep the information also in audit log intact to prevent the missing information on "who did what".
Updated by livdywan over 3 years ago
okurz wrote:
The current PR https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/3247 now should aim for deleting the user when there are no relations pending in the DB . As a followup we could consider https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/3247#issuecomment-659453683 and ensure the user can be deleted in these cases as well and replace the references in DB accordingly. But I actually opt for even not doing that to keep the information also in audit log intact to prevent the missing information on "who did what".
As it is you have to delete all events the user is involved in to delete them. So the "who" is definitely lost.
I would suggest we allow clearing the user details without dropping the user so the audit events can remain.
Updated by okurz over 3 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
This is why I meant to not do anything and keep it as is. We have support to delete unlinked users and IMHO we can live with that until someone external asks for more :)
@ilausuch not sure what other work if any you have planned for this as you have not provided a comment but I think we can set the specific task with the mentioned limited to "Resolved" here