Willingness to change a VRE name has severe implications
|Status:||Closed||Start date:||Oct 16, 2015|
|Assignee:||Luca Frosini||% Done:|
|Sprint:||zz - Smartgears|
If a VRE designer/manager is willing to change the VRE name after the VRE has been created, the only possibility is to decommission the existing VRE and create a new one.
This is due to a misuse of the VRE name, it is actually used like the "unique identifier" in many contexts (e.g. scope, workspace).
The ideal solution should be to use a real ID for referring to the VRE. The metadata of the VRE must be stored in a "resource" on the IS that associate that metadata with the VRE Identifier.
For the sake of "readability" it is always possible to "replace" the ID with the "VRE name" ... for identification we should refrain from using "names".
#3 Updated by Leonardo Candela almost 4 years ago
- Status changed from Closed to In Progress
I suggest to keep the ticket open, we do not have to work on it right now.
Moreover, my feeling is that the limitation is not only a matter of the IS rather it is a matter of how the services involved in VRE creation and management exploit it. Please, feel free to re-assign the ticket to someone else if you feel that you are not the right assignee. The ticket should remain "open".
#6 Updated by Luca Frosini almost 4 years ago
I already discussed about this with @email@example.com and the solution is the one you suggested Leonardo.
This has a huge impact on many components (i.e storage, home-library, accounting).
I already thought for a workaround that works well for accounting.
The workaround for old VRE can be that the id will be the old full scope. The new one (IMHO) should be generated randomly and should be an UUID.
Otherwise we have to create scripts to replace the old values.
This task can be accomplished only when the new IS will be available.
#11 Updated by Luca Frosini about 3 years ago
- % Done changed from 30 to 50
The new authentication mechanism together with the new Information System will enable this feature.
The feature is already implemented in resource registry ref #5066.
The feature will be available when the new information system will replace the existing one.
I don't know which is the impact on:
- home library @firstname.lastname@example.org
- storage @email@example.com
- portal @firstname.lastname@example.org
- data catalogue @email@example.com
- other services/libraries
I think is better to open a discussion on social part of gcube VRE.
@firstname.lastname@example.org do you think is better starting to create it right now or after review?