Xorcist Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 I have a Plastic server running with user/password setup. I was under the impression that any other user running Plastic could read/pull from my repos without generating a user license, but they would require one to push/write to my repos. Meaning I could put more users/passwords in than my server license allowed, and it would not restrict any of them from getting code updates from me. Is this true? I recently disabled a user who does not need write access anymore, and provided a new user a new login, but now the old user can't pull from me. He get's an error message about his account being inactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xorcist Posted September 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Seems other users with logins, but without license entries, can pull from me just fine. I noticed that for all those users they never had a user license entry to begin with (all read-only). But this particular user obviously did, and after a "cm du %user%", a "cm li" shows him as inactive. Is this a bug? How can I remove his entry from this list entirely, so he can be allowed to pull again? The following post sited that removing the user via umtool.exe and then restarting the server would erase his entry, but this is not the case. http://www.plasticscm.net/index.php?/topic/1753-flush-license-information-and-read-only-user/ in fact I removed the user login completely and there is still an inactive user license record for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbzam Posted September 4, 2015 Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 Hi, In order to pull/push code, a user will need credentials to connect to your server. If the user doesn´t have login credentials and a profile he won´t even list your repositories or branches. If the remote user is going to perform write operations in your server (checkin/push), he will also need an enabled license in your server for that purpose. For read operations, the user doesn´t cosnume a license spot. After removing users and deactivate their licenses, they will always appear in the license information as INACTIVE. There is hisotrical content in the repo created by this user, so he will be still in the database. For instance, if you check old changesets, you can still see that they were created from a removed user. Please, let me know if it helps. Regards, Carlos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xorcist Posted September 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 Right, so at one point this user was allowed write access, but now I have revoked that by disabling his license, however I still want to allow read-only access to him. How do I accomplish that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manu Posted September 7, 2015 Report Share Posted September 7, 2015 Hello, if the user is "disabled" then he can't read the data, he can't actually access to the system so the "read-only" role is not granted. You can have an additional account, without consuming a new license, for auditing o read-only purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xorcist Posted September 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Oh, I think I get it now. So instead of what I was doing previously, adding separate logins for each user. I can just create a generic read-only user login for everyone to use. That makes sense. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manu Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 Yep, I think for RO purposes is the best option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.