Grouper Developers Forum

[Chris Hyzer <>]

This is done, and I threw in "requireGroups" which is types and/or attributes 
which can create composites which require members to be in other groups (e.g. 
activeEmployee).  Take a look and let me know any feedback (and soon :) ).

https://wiki.internet2.edu/confluence/display/GrouperWG/Include+exclude+and+require+groups

https://bugs.internet2.edu/jira/browse/GRP-178

Regards,
Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Barton 
> [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:51 AM
> To: Chris Hyzer
> Cc: Loris Bennett; Grouper Dev
> Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] auto-creating "include" and "exclude" groups
> based on group type hook
>
> I think that https://bugs.internet2.edu/jira/browse/GRP-151 would
> create the proper set of groups, but I have two questions.
>
> In addition to removing the manual steps to create the necessary
> include and exclude groups, it may be that sites will only wish to
> provision the resultant _overall group. Should the other _ groups be
> marked with an attribute that can be used to deselect them for
> provisioning (or perhaps it should be the other way around)?
>
> Will the substrings following the _ be configurable? Eg, in your
> example with org21, perhaps we'd rather see the resulting included and
> excluded group be named org21, and would choose to apply suffixes along
> these
> lines: org21_from_sor (ie, as determined from its System of Record),
> org21_include, org21_sorandinclude, and org21_exclude.
>
> Chris Hyzer wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> >
> >
> > Loris and I were discussing this enhancement which would be
> especially
> > useful to how Loris and I will the loader, but will also be valuable
> > for manually created groups as well...
> >
> >
> >
> > https://bugs.internet2.edu/jira/browse/GRP-178
> >
> >
> >
> > I think if this is a decent generic implementation, then it will not
> > be customizable, and you can take the hook source code for this, and
> > duplicate or subclass, and put your own customizations in there.
> This
> > is probably better than making this hook customizable... since there
> > probably wont be much code there anyways.
> >
> >
> >
> > Still need to make sure it is all feasible...
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?  Let me know sooner than later... J
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >