Grouper Users - Open Discussion List

[Shilen Patel <>]

Also, even if this was done, I don't think it would take care of TomZ's
concern regarding time delays since the change log entries for flattened
memberships are created by the daemon and not by the process making the
membership change so there's already a time delay.

Thanks!

-- Shilen

On 4/6/12 7:07 PM, "Chris Hyzer" 
<>
 wrote:

>I think we should document that changes in provisioning attributes take 5
>minutes to propagate to the provisioner... you can do a second query and
>cache for 5 minutes...
>Sound good?  :)
>
>I don't think we should add attributes to the change log since we would
>need to add for each type of query it will get complicated to configure
>and what if someone needs more attributes for various provisioners than
>are available.  It doesn't really scale...
>
>Thanks,
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: 
>
> 
>[mailto:]
> On Behalf Of Tom
>Zeller
>Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 12:05 AM
>To: Colin Hudler
>Cc: 
>
>Subject: Re: [grouper-users] Replicating peculiar functionality with psp
>
>Here is one issue worth talking about.
>
>The current code for change log based provisioning does not handle the
>custom attributes which determine whether or not a group should be
>provisioned as well as the desired ldap dn.
>
>For the first attempt at change log based provisioning, I decided to
>try to provision based on change log entry data only without
>additional queries. An "add membership" change log entry does not
>contain the custom group attributes, so another query would be needed
>to return those attributes. Not a big deal, except ... I have been
>worried about phasing, meaning the potential time difference between
>when a change log entry is processed and when the action producing the
>change log entry occurred. I think I am alone in my concern.
>
>A potential solution is to use PIT (point-in-time) auditing to return
>the group as it was when the change log event occurred. However, if I
>remember correctly, I don't think that custom attributes are included
>in PIT auditing, but new attribute framework attributes are.
>
>In general, I prefer provisioning a change log entry without
>performing additional queries, meaning, a change log entry should
>contain all of the data necessary for provisioning.
>
>Maybe it could be possible to include custom attributes in change log
>entries ? A change log entry has capacity for 12 strings (columns),
>maybe deployers could specify additional group (or member or stem)
>attributes to be returned in addition to the group (or member or stem)
>name or id ?
>
>So, rather than the provisioner querying for additional data at the
>time of provisioning, perhaps grouper could include necessary
>additional data in the change log entry at the time the change log
>event occurred, which would alleviate my concerns regarding time
>delays.
>
>Whether or not folks use the psp for provisioning based on the change
>log, I think they will face similar issues, and customizing change log
>entries may help deployers regardless of their provisioning gear.
>
>This response is probably too long already, but it might be a good
>idea to standardize and perhaps provide a default configuration for
>attributes used to determine whether or not objects should be
>provisioned, as well as target identifiers.
>
>TomZ
>
>On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Tom Zeller 
><>
> wrote:
>> Apologies for the delay in my response.
>>
>> In general, I think you will be ok, meaning : you should be able to do
>> what you want.
>>
>> It will take me a minute to parse your configuration, in the meantime,
>> could you help me understand  :
>>
>>> Our static groups may not have a canonical groupDn, and often not any
>>>static
>>> group at all.
>>
>> I think you are saying that the ldap dn of a static group is user
>> specified, and stored as a group attribute in grouper. This seems
>> fine.
>>
>> And, regarding :
>>
>>> allows the user to also specify the DOMAIN where groups are stored (we
>>>do
>>> not always have them in the same domain as users).
>>
>> What is the impact of the user specified domain ? Does each domain
>> require an ldap connection ?
>>
>> Thanks for trying out the psp.
>>
>> TomZ
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Colin Hudler 
>> <>
>>wrote:
>>> We have custom provisioner to LDAP. Users are allowed to add a Group
>>>Type
>>> and attribute value that the provisioner looks for to enable the
>>> synchronization to LDAP. One of the attributes allows the user to
>>>write the
>>> group into one or many pre-defined LDAP containers (e.g,
>>> ou=groups,ou=groups,ou=application,...). The attribute value is a
>>>string
>>> containing DNs separated by semicolon.
>>>
>>> My approach so far is the goal of psp writing exactly the same
>>> static/dynamic groups as our custom sync. Success is measured by
>>>bulkCalc
>>> returning whatever is the equivalent of no-op. Alternatively, I can
>>> restructure how we use Types and Attributes. The immovable is our
>>>ability to
>>> direct static groups using Type/Attribute for one or more LDAP
>>>containers.
>>>
>>> I have been successful in plucking the groups in GroupDataConnector,
>>> AllGroupNamesConnector, et al, by using GroupExactAttribute filters.
>>> However, I wonder about the feasibility of the dynamic user-specified
>>>static
>>> group DNs. Besides that I cannot currently conceive of the correct
>>> psp-resolver configuration, I think this might be opposed to the design
>>> (please let me know). Will it cause problems with the groupDn
>>>attribute? Our
>>> static groups may not have a canonical groupDn, and often not any
>>>static
>>> group at all. Attached is my attempt at a psp-resolver and psp.xml
>>> configuration just for POC. I think the log message during bulkCalc
>>>"PSO
>>> Identifier Definition 'groupDn' - Source attribute 'groupDn' does not
>>>exist"
>>> points at least at part of my problem.
>>>
>>> As if that isn't enough, our custom AD synchronizer works similarly,
>>>except
>>> allows the user to also specify the DOMAIN where groups are stored (we
>>>do
>>> not always have them in the same domain as users). Perhaps I'll tackle
>>>this
>>> another time, but we also have user objects from a forest trust which
>>>are
>>> resolved by the provisioner (the group-member in AD must be a specially
>>> formatted foreign SID obtained from the other forest, not a vanilla
>>>local
>>> user object). WHAT A MESS!