TestStand UserManagement Update

[BrianGShea@NGC]

Provide a UserManagementCallbacks.seq to replace the currently hard-coded built in TestStand User management so that we can implement our own site-specific user management.

Sequences should allow for

1) Retrieving and returning of a user container from a database or file of our choosing (login)

2) Storage of new user credentials to a database or file of our choosing

3) Adding a New User with the option to reject (i.e. we don't like the name "!#%ThisGuysName!!!")

3) Deleting a User with option to reject deletion (i.e. we don't want to allow deleting user "Administrator" or "ThisReallyImportantUser"

4) Updating User Information

5) Logout, return a default user or shutdown on logout.

6) Retrieving of All Users available for login.

7) Check if a UserExists

This would be in addition to the FrontEndCallbacks that handle the Login/LogOut process.

[bienieck]

Can't you implement it in the FrontEndCallbacks? IMHO, first and foremost, the user management improvement should incorporate Active Directory.

[BrianGShea@NGC]

The frontend callback only handles log in/out events.

The Users.ini file must still have the user in the file prior to login. The original ask is for a way to replace that User.ini with an API to implement site specific User management.

Your suggestion and the current implementation requires that we import users from a central location to the User.ini file and reload the users.ini prior to login. This can be time consuming. Then we must manage that file for user changes such as privilege or removal.

Having an API that we can override will allow us to use a database backend that can be replicated and queried. (My specific implementation idea). Or someone else could choose to use Network Authorization via a domain controller or OAuth backend.

Why not provide an API that can be Overridden and also provide an Active Directory implementation to that API in the same pass. In my case active directory would be a no-go because it would be too difficult to manage with our IT and security.

I would also accept a SystemLink implementation along with a more robust API to allow us to tweak to our site-specific requirements. 

[bienieck]

You convinced me 😀