[Fedora-infrastructure-list] Translating owners.list to packagedb: unknown accounts

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Hey packagedb and accounts2 people,

As part of filling the test packageDB with data, I'm working on a script
that pulls information out of owners.list and enters it into the
packageDB.  One of the problems is that I've got 631 errors where an
email address in owners.list doesn't match with anyone in the current
accounts system.  So I need to get a handle on how we can fix these
issues both short-term and long-term.

1) extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org is listed as qa contact on all the Extras
Packages.  This field is nullable so I've decided that short term, I'll
leave this field as NULL.  Long term, we can either create an extras-qa
user in the accounts system or we can ask the people in Fedora Extras
what they want to do with it.  Unless there's a better idea, I'll
propose to them that we leave this as NULL and only fill the field if
there is actually someone who is the qa contact.

2) extras-orphan(a)fedoraproject.org is for packages which have been
abandoned.  I thought about letting Null equate to an orphaned package
but I think we might want to be notified if someone is modifying an
orphaned package so I think setting it to an orphaned user account is
better.  My long term suggestion is to create a fedora-orphan or
extras-orphan user in the account system to handle these.  Short term,
I'll just set them to go to me instead (heh -- Looks like I'll only have
46 extra packages to pretend to take care of.)

3) fedora-perl-devel-list(a)redhat.com is watching all perl packages.  No
matter what, we'll probably create a perl-SIG group in accounts.  For
SIGs, people should sign up for SIGs in the accounts system and then
they will receive all notifications that the SIG would receive.  There's
another table in the packageDB that handles that.  This leads to two
long term paths: perl-devel-list will be outdated in this new scheme as
everyone interested will just get notification via the SIG.  The other
path is that people still want notifications to go to the mailing list
instead of (or in addition to) subscribing themselves to the perl-SIG.
If that's the case we'll have to either create a perl-SIG user in the
accounts system or allow groups in the new accounts system to have an
email address.  lyz, abompard, do you have opinions on this?  Short term
I'm going to set these to being watched by a non-existent-group.  We'll
have to fix that before we get group notification working.

4) other emails which are not in the accounts system: This seems to
account for 82 errors.  I think that most of them are because the user's
bugzilla email address is not the same as the accounts system email
address.  Long Term: Running against the AccountsSystem2 with multiple
email addresses.  Short Term: I'm going to try to figure out which
addresses map to what numbers in the accountsdb.  This'll be tedious but
we should be able to just make the proper entries into the accounts db
later and everything will work.  One requirement this introduces to the
AccountsDB is being able to ask "for userid 12345, what is that user's
bugzilla address?"

Alternate short-term ideas that will save work are welcome.  Alternate
long-term ideas should make good discussion.  Code is owners.py in the
bzr repository:
  bzr branch http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~toshio/fedora/fedora-packagedb/

-Toshio

[Mike McGrath]

On 9/14/06, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hey packagedb and accounts2 people,
>
>  As part of filling the test packageDB with data, I'm working on a script
>  that pulls information out of owners.list and enters it into the
>  packageDB.  One of the problems is that I've got 631 errors where an
>  email address in owners.list doesn't match with anyone in the current
>  accounts system.  So I need to get a handle on how we can fix these
>  issues both short-term and long-term.
>  
Unfortunately this is a common problem.  I too fit into this category.
 The new accounting system should probably account for a users
bugzilla email.  The difficulty is in verifying this and not just
trusing what the user says though I don't really know what damage they
could do.

       -Mike

[Elliot Lee]

On Sep 14, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:

>  On 9/14/06, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > Hey packagedb and accounts2 people,
> >
> > As part of filling the test packageDB with data, I'm working on a  
> > script
> > that pulls information out of owners.list and enters it into the
> > packageDB.  One of the problems is that I've got 631 errors where an
> > email address in owners.list doesn't match with anyone in the current
> > accounts system.  So I need to get a handle on how we can fix these
> > issues both short-term and long-term.
> >
>
>  Unfortunately this is a common problem.  I too fit into this category.
>  The new accounting system should probably account for a users
>  bugzilla email.  The difficulty is in verifying this and not just
>  trusing what the user says though I don't really know what damage they
>  could do. 
As long as the new account system allows for multiple email  
addresses, that should be sufficient. Perhaps down the road it will  
be useful to add an 'is_bugzilla_account' field in the table listing  
the email addresses for each account. However, even that is  
unnecessary if the applications in question have access to the list  
of all bugzilla accounts and to the new account DB.

There is also the corner case to consider where people have multiple  
bugzilla accounts for their multiple e-mail addresses.

Best,
-- Elliot

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 15:07 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote:
>  On Sep 14, 2006, at 12:24 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>  
>  > On 9/14/06, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  >> Hey packagedb and accounts2 people,
>  >>
>  >> As part of filling the test packageDB with data, I'm working on a  
>  >> script
>  >> that pulls information out of owners.list and enters it into the
>  >> packageDB.  One of the problems is that I've got 631 errors where an
>  >> email address in owners.list doesn't match with anyone in the current
>  >> accounts system.  So I need to get a handle on how we can fix these
>  >> issues both short-term and long-term.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Unfortunately this is a common problem.  I too fit into this category.
>  > The new accounting system should probably account for a users
>  > bugzilla email.  The difficulty is in verifying this and not just
>  > trusing what the user says though I don't really know what damage they
>  > could do.
>   
The accounts system can query bugzilla to be sure the email address is a
valid bugzilla account.

>  As long as the new account system allows for multiple email  
>  addresses, that should be sufficient. Perhaps down the road it will  
>  be useful to add an 'is_bugzilla_account' field in the table listing  
>  the email addresses for each account. However, even that is  
>  unnecessary if the applications in question have access to the list  
>  of all bugzilla accounts and to the new account DB.
>  
>  There is also the corner case to consider where people have multiple  
>  bugzilla accounts for their multiple e-mail addresses. 
Right.  So much better to let the user specify 'is_bugzilla_account' in
the accounts system then to have each application query the list of
emails, ask bugzilla which of those are also bugzilla accounts, and then
guess which of the remaining list of email addresses the user wants
their Fedora Project bugzilla-mail to go to.

-Toshio