-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 447
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
Delete Account #2472
Delete Account #2472
Conversation
<enable_delete_account/> is set in config.xml
create token and send email)
The one thing I notice in all the code is the blurb at the top that says:
It would be nicer if the URL was immediately made https, so that you don't have to do that again in the future. |
Conflicts: html/inc/token.inc html/ops/test_token.php
@Ageless93 - thanks for the feedback. I've updated them to https. |
html/inc/token.inc
Outdated
// Constants for token durations | ||
define("TOKEN_DURATION_ONE_DAY", "86400"); | ||
|
||
function create_confirm_delete_account_token($user) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can this function and the is_valid_delete_account_token be generalized. I think having them generalized will help decrease the amount of code as well as the maintenance of it going forward. Having functions that call say create_token($userid, $type, $expire_time = null). This way anywhere that needs to use a new token can easily call it. At the moment we have 2 types needed, one for delete account and email change, but this can be used for many more types going forward.
is_valid_token($userid, $token, $type) is for the other generalized function
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.
I'm going to implement this on #2474 and then merge into this branch.
erased code. This is the implementation that will be used for the 'obfuscate' account mechanism.
project config.xml
@davidpanderson - left you a message. Give me a ring or I'll call you again tomorrow. |
Kevin:
I'm in DC at a mandatory NSF meeting.
I should be home around 1 PM tomorrow; will try you.
-- D
…On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Kevin Reed ***@***.***> wrote:
@davidpanderson <https://github.com/davidpanderson> - left you a message.
Give me a ring or I'll call you again tomorrow.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2472 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA8KgY3KdtZRt2Bl7vJESk1ShyIEC6EPks5tuLywgaJpZM4TZMfx>
.
|
is removed from the system. add task to remove entries from those tables after 60 days.
id instead of userid and hostid
Also modify db_dump to exclude user records whose authenticator starts with 'deleted' or host domain names that equal 'deleted'. Those values are set by the obfuscate delete method.
@davidpanderson - if you could review also and if both you and @brevilo are satisfied, then please merge as well. Thanks! |
Fine with me. Oliver, merge if OK with you. |
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.
While it almost feels like nitpicking, I'm not really happy with the abbreviated index names. I mean, they're almost never to be typed anyway so I don't see the justification to reduce their readability (contextual meaning) in favor of length. Opinions?
@bema-ligo are you happy with this or does it (still) mean a no-merge for you? Please review Kevin's changes regarding this. |
I've made the names long. However, many indexes previously had shortened names so I had been following that convention. |
can be customized by projects in the project.inc file
@bema-ligo and @brevilo, |
Thanks Kevin, sounds good to me. I'll merge as soon as I here from @bema-ligo . |
How about your review @Uplinger? Are you satisfied? If so, please acknowledge/accept the review changes. Ideally @davidpanderson would do the same such that all reviews are visibly done (upper right). |
Duh! |
I've completed my regression testing. Once I review the scrutinizer feedback it should be good for merge. |
I've incorproated the scruitinizer feedback as pertains to my code. Note that it has a false bug report that I've submitted to them for review. |
I'm done with the code. Please merge when you are satisfied. |
@brevilo - Can you go over to Bernd's office and discuss with him? All other reviewers have approved (either inline in the discussion or formally via the review feature). Sorry for pushing, but since WCG is not up to current code, we have some work to do to integrate this into our code and @Uplinger is blocked getting started on that until this is in master. |
Yep, same here. I reckon we can still optimize things later should Bernd have further input. So let's go... |
Thanks Kevin for all the effort you put into this! Thanks also to all the others involved in various ways 👍 |
Sorry for the delay at my end. FTR: I'm fine with the solution (configurable time). |
Since this was merged 6 days ago, can it be tested someplace for real? I haven't seen this code be available yet at for instance Seti@Home. Not that I want to test it there, but wouldn't mind testing it at a test project. The 25th is less than two days away. |
We already deployed a custom solution at Einstein@Home as well as our test instance Albert@Home. However, we're currently waiting for #2524 to be merged which will then make use of the features added by this PR. |
This pull request resolves issue #2447
This will be a work in progress for a bit, so please don't merge. However, since it is a large change I wanted to push incremental updates for review if people want to look.