-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 76
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implementation of Groupbackend #545
Conversation
f29f3ce
to
d34ad7c
Compare
For this step we need input/advice from the maintainers because we are currently not sure which implementation for that would be the best. |
8467038
to
aae3530
Compare
@blizzz Beneath the main parts of this PR, which already worked like a charm, we finished now the last open issues on this PR:
Can you please review our changes? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a bit more type hinting there possible
5752099
to
b0f45cd
Compare
39c1e1d
to
6741fb6
Compare
Is there a chance that this will get merged at some point? Can we do anything to help with that? Otherwise we would start searching for a solution outside of the user_saml app. |
We're already using the changes introduced with this PR in production and it works quite well. Migrating the groups into a dedicated back end also went smoothly. I think merging this PR adds more flexibility to the group management with this app. However we're able to implement other mechanisms and migrate back to the normal group back end if there is no chance that this PR is going to be merged. |
$this->logger = $logger; | ||
} | ||
|
||
public function checkForDuplicates(string $group): void { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
seems to be unused?
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Treffler <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Treffler <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
This reverts commit 48f331f. Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Carl Schwan <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
- Switch to new configuration setup, see nextcloud#558 Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Giuliano Mele <[email protected]>
3b77c54
to
49aa594
Compare
- also fixes some logic errors and deprecations - GroupBackend can now implement INamedBackend Signed-off-by: Arthur Schiwon <[email protected]>
@JonathanTreffler I think this commit got lost: netzbegruenung@f5173a9 |
My own smoke-testing otherwise went fine. Also the migration bits. Still would tend to add the IdP-identifiert to the default SAML-Prefix. Also with regard to #355 (comment) occ commands as migration utilities (removing groups from migration, and reverting migrations) should be added, but I would add this in a seperate PR and not blow up this PR more than further necessary. I consider adding integration tests, does not need to be a blocker either. |
Hi guys! Thanks for spending some time to resolve this. I'm not sure which is the better solution between this and #659, but if we could get one of these reviewed and merged, that would be fantastic. Selfishly, I'm about to deploy 5 azure instances of NC, and this would completely eliminate LDAP out of my design. This is a game changer, and I deeply appreciate all of the development that has gone into this solution and as well what @Ma27 did in 659. Thanks in advance! |
Closing as work is continued in #662, where it can also being pushed to. Currently I am looking into integration tests and would like then to conclude the PR. |
continuation of #536
Since this is a long-running feature implementation with many PRs here's the timeline: