Grouper Developers Forum

["Hyzer, Chris" <>]

I think unit tests should be used.

If you have a DAO-like design where the interaction to the external system is 
with a Java interface you can make a testing implementation that keeps track 
of the actions, know what I mean?  Do an action, run the change log, run the 
consumer, check for the effect in state in the test implementation...


Thanks
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: William G. Thompson, Jr. 
[mailto:]
 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 4:00 PM
To: Hyzer, Chris 
<>
Cc: Grouper Dev 
<>;
 Shilen Patel 
<>
Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] PITGroup assigned attributes?

Working on the expect behavior as test cases as described here:
https://gist.github.com/wgthom/9e40ea12d48aa1bb1c6d

On the right track?  Any tips on automating these? (going to try some
basic gsh scripts to start with)

Best
Bill



On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:18 AM, William G. Thompson, Jr.
<>
 wrote:
> By "indirect marked group" I mean groups that are being synced because of a
> mark on a parent folder.  The consumer just deals with effective membership
> with regards to grouper groups within groups.  Make sense?
>
> On Feb 21, 2016 9:48 AM, "Hyzer, Chris" 
> <>
>  wrote:
>>
>> Why do you have to worry about indirectly marked groups (group as a member
>> of a marked group)?
>>
>> Don’t you just have to manage the members that are added/removed as a
>> result which will flow through the change log?  And ignore the indirect
>> group markings?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> 
>> [mailto:]
>>  On Behalf Of William G. Thompson,
>> Jr.
>> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 9:21 AM
>> To: Shilen Patel 
>> <>
>> Cc: Grouper Dev 
>> <>
>> Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] PITGroup assigned attributes?
>>
>> Yes, here are the cases (so far) that I'm considering:
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AK8v7m_MAzuByZa0PTV4JUmBlIBe99i-ZDUPUBIyR64/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Place a marker on a folder
>> Place a marker on a group
>> Remove a marker from a group
>> Remove a marker from a folder
>> Add an indirectly marked group
>> Delete a directly marked group*
>> Delete an indirectly marked group*
>> Membership add on a marked group (direct or indirect)
>> Membership delete on a marked group (direct or indirect)
>>
>> * note grouper will remove all memberships (and issue change log
>> events) before the group is deleted. which will cause the target to
>> also remove all memberships before the group is removed. correct?
>> (possible work around? might just need to remove the group at the
>> target in this case)
>>
>> Best,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Shilen Patel 
>> <>
>>  wrote:
>> > You're still looking at add group and delete group to handle cases where
>> > a
>> > parent folder is marked?  If so, this makes sense to me.
>> >
>> > - Shilen
>> >
>> > On 2/20/16, 11:07 AM, "William G. Thompson, Jr." 
>> > <>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>OK.  Here's a gist of the marker attribute assign add and delete:
>> >>https://gist.github.com/wgthom/5807e6c2b1900e432400
>> >>
>> >>attributeAssign_addAttributeAssign { /** * On assignment of the
>> >>syncAttribute marker, create all the groups or group (if directly
>> >>assigned) * and any current memberships at the target. */
>> >>
>> >>attributeAssign_deleteAttributeAssign { /** * On removal of the
>> >>syncAttribute marker, delete all the groups or group (if directly
>> >>assigned) at the target, unless * otherwise still marked by direct
>> >>assignment or a parent folder. */
>> >>
>> >>Making sense?
>> >>
>> >>Best,
>> >>Bill
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Shilen Patel 
>> >><>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >> If the attribute assign delete is guaranteed to be in the change
>> >>> >> log
>> >>>on group and folder deletes then I should be able to key off of that?
>> >>>
>> >>> That's what I would do :) and have done with change log consumers I've
>> >>>built that sync based on attribute assignments.  Maybe Chris has other
>> >>>thoughts.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks!
>> >>>
>> >>> - Shilen
>> >>>
>> >>> From: "<William G. Thompson>", "Jr." 
>> >>> <>
>> >>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 2:25 PM
>> >>> To: Shilen Patel 
>> >>> <>
>> >>> Cc: Grouper Dev 
>> >>> <>
>> >>>
>> >>> Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] PITGroup assigned attributes?
>> >>>
>> >>> Removing the marker attribute from a group or folder would be saying I
>> >>>no longer want this group or set of groups provisioned to the target.
>> >>>So that case would be a group delete at the target.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the attribute assign delete is guaranteed to be in the change log
>> >>> on
>> >>>group and folder deletes then I should be able to key off of that?
>> >>>
>> >>> Best,
>> >>> Bill
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Shilen Patel 
>> >>> <>
>> >>>  wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sure, if that would make things easier for you.  Feel free to create
>> >>>> a
>> >>>>jira. :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think one issue with your PIT code is that the attribute may have
>> >>>>been assigned to the group, but then later unassigned.  And then
>> >>>>sometime (potentially long) after, the group was deleted.  You'd still
>> >>>>see that the group had the attribute assigned in the past, but would
>> >>>>have to look at the time or context to see if it was part of the group
>> >>>>delete operation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Though I'm wondering..  If your sync'ing is based on attribute
>> >>>>assignments, I don't see change log events for assign adds and
>> >>>> deletes.
>> >>>> When a group is deleted, if the attribute was assigned at the time of
>> >>>>deletion, you'd get the attribute assign delete before the group
>> >>>>delete.  So you'd know it was actually being sync'ed by the first
>> >>>>event.  I'm guessing you'd still want to look at the group deletes too
>> >>>>in case the folder (or ancestor folder) had the attribute.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Shilen
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: "<William G. Thompson>", "Jr." 
>> >>>> <>
>> >>>> Date: Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:26 PM
>> >>>> To: Grouper Dev 
>> >>>> <>
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] PITGroup assigned attributes?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For checking for the syncAttribute marker...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is working for groups that are still in the registry.
>> >>>> group.getAttributeDelegate().hasAttributeOrAncestorHasAttribute(...)
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>> >>>>https://gist.github.com/wgthom/f34fb9edfe3029febf5b#file-isgroupmarkedfo
>> >>>>rsync-java-L15
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And this is working for deleted groups in the PIT:
>> >>>>
>>
>> >>>> >>>>https://gist.github.com/wgthom/f34fb9edfe3029febf5b#file-isgroupmarkedfo
>> >>>>rsync-java-L22
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Would it make sense to have something like:
>> >>>> pitGroup.hasPITAttributeAssignOrAncestorHasPITAttributeAssign(...)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best,
>> >>>> Bill
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:58 AM, William G. Thompson, Jr.
>> >>>><>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks, Shilen.  That looks exactly like what I need.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This is still very much a work in progress, but would appreciate any
>> >>>>> thoughts on the code or direction.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Base "Group and Membership" consumer
>> >>>>>
>>
>> >>>>> >>>>>https://gist.github.com/wgthom/cf129f9f33fdfdad5148#file-changelogconsu
>> >>>>>merbaseimpl-java
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Example "Group and Membership" consumer implementation for a target
>> >>>>>
>>
>> >>>>> >>>>>https://gist.github.com/wgthom/54e08c7d44b802f720ce#file-printchangelog
>> >>>>>consumer-java
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best,
>> >>>>> Bill
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Shilen Patel 
>> >>>>> <>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> > Hi Bill,
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Take a look at PITAttributeAssignFinder.  Let me know if that
>> >>>>>doesn't give
>> >>>>> > you what you need.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Thanks!
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > - Shilen
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > On 2/17/16, 9:25 PM, "William G. Thompson, Jr." 
>> >>>>> > <>
>> >>>>>wrote:
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >>I'm working on a ChangeLogConsumer to sync groups and membership
>> >>>>> >> to
>> >>>>>a
>> >>>>> >>target (in this case Office365), but it could be used for any
>> >>>>>target.
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >>The current design calls for a marking attribute to be assigned to
>> >>>>> >>groups or folders.  If the attribute is assigned to a group it is
>> >>>>> >>marked for provisioning. If the attribute is assigned to a folder
>> >>>>>all
>> >>>>> >>the groups within the folder and any sub folders are marked for
>> >>>>> >>provisioning.
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >>As the changeLogEvents come though I can check the group or parent
>> >>>>> >>folders for the mark. So far so good. However when a deleted group
>> >>>>> >>changeLogEvent comes through for a directly marked group, the
>> >>>>> >> group
>> >>>>>is
>> >>>>> >>already deleted so I can't query the group for attribute
>> >>>>>assignments.
>> >>>>> >>I can get the PITGroup, but it doesn't seem to provide access to
>> >>>>> >>PITAttribtueAssignments.
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >>Is this possible somehow?
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >>Best,
>> >>>>> >>Bill
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >