1. 02 Jun, 2008 1 commit
  2. 20 Dec, 2006 1 commit
  3. 01 May, 2003 1 commit
  4. 14 Apr, 2003 1 commit
    • Chad Barb's avatar
      · 67a08472
      Chad Barb authored
      - Added 'Country' to users table
      - Changed "Zip" to "ZIP/Postal Code"
      - Reformatted Postal Address Forms
  5. 11 Apr, 2003 1 commit
  6. 23 Dec, 2002 1 commit
  7. 09 Dec, 2002 1 commit
    • Leigh B. Stoller's avatar
      New set of pages for dealing with users requesting widearea accounts. · ad90fb6f
      Leigh B. Stoller authored
      A user can request a local account on the machine he/she has dedicated
      to netbed. In fact, multiple people can request local accounts. They
      just need to fill in the form, supplying the usual personal data we
      require, and then some info about the node. This includes the IP and
      the CDKey as verification (we now save the original CDKey in the DB
      forever), as well as info about the node (location, processor type,
      connection type). They must fill out the node info for the first
      account request. Otherwise, it can be ignored (that is, if an entry is
      already in widearea_nodeinfo, we do not require those fields).
      Once submitted, the user has to go through the usual verification
      To approve the user, admin people get a new link on the menu to
      approve widearea accounts. That page looks a lot like the normal
      join project approval page, only is tailored slightly for widearea
      accounts instead of projects.
      Once approved, widearea users get a webonly account. Note that it can
      be a normal account, say if the user is also in a normal project, or
      if we just want to give out an account on ops/boss to this person.
      Just need to clear the webonly flag in the DB, and the account will be
      built as normal, except they are put in the "guest" group on boss/ops
      if not a member of any projects.
      There are two new tables. widearea_accounts and widearea_nodeinfo. The
      accounts table maps uid's to specific nodes they get an account on
      (see changes in tmcd). The mapping also includes a trust value (user
      or root, although it should be rare to give out root access) for the
  8. 16 Aug, 2002 1 commit
    • Chad Barb's avatar
      · 60529980
      Chad Barb authored
      The big one.
      New look;
      most of the changes are in menu.php3.
      A lot of the changes in other files are s/<TD>/<TH>/
      for table headers.
      Also closed some tags, tweaked some table styles, etc..
      No actual functionality should have changed.
      Will be installing soon...
  9. 07 Jul, 2002 1 commit
  10. 01 Jul, 2002 1 commit
  11. 22 May, 2002 1 commit
    • Leigh B. Stoller's avatar
      A large set of authorization changes. · d2360b6d
      Leigh B. Stoller authored
      * Cleanup! A lot of the structure derived from the early frame days,
        which had a noticable (and bad) effect on how I wrote the stuff.  I
        cleaned up most of that yuckyness.
      * In process, optimize a little bit on the queries. The old code did
        about 9 queries just to write out the menu options, and then
        repeated most of those queries again in the page guts. I've
        consolidated the queries as much as possible (to 3) and cache all
        the results.
      * Fix up problem with users who forget their passwords before
        verification. Basically, I fixed the more general problem of not
        being able to update your user info before verification/approval;
        users now get that menu option no matter their status.
      * Fix up problem of users being able to access pages before
        verification (but after approval) by going around the menu options.
        The page level check (after the menu is drawn) now checks all
        conditions (password expired, unverified, unapproved, timedout, and
        also nologins()).
      * Minor change in approveuser; do not show the new account to the
        project leader until the new user has verified his account.
      * Change verification method, as reqwuested by Dave.  In addition to
        providing the key, also provide a web link to take the user straight
        to verification. I actually take them direct to the login page, and
        pass the key in as an argument. If the user is already logged in,
        bypass and go directly to the verify page (not the form page of
        course).  If the user is not logged in, let him log in, and then
        forward the key onward to the verify page. Basically, bypass the
        form all the time, and just do the verification.
      * Minor change in showuser; Do not show pid/groups not approved in,
        and if the count is zero, do not draw the table headings.
  12. 13 Apr, 2002 1 commit
  13. 20 Dec, 2001 1 commit
    • Leigh B. Stoller's avatar
      And finally, all those groups changes I've been whining and yammering · c13d27c3
      Leigh B. Stoller authored
      and complaining about this week.
      1. editgroup: You can now edit the trust levels for existing group
         members (default group too), and you can specify trust levels when
         adding users to subgroups.
      2. approveusers: When approving users in the approval page, you can
         specify different levels of trust. Before, I invisibly set all the
         trust values the same. I also added some ordering to the DB query
         to group users together.
      3. I added a great deal of error checking to the processing pages for
         both forms. I split things up into a pre/post pass. The prepass
         goes through all of the form args and checks them for consistency
         and correctness. Nothing is changed in the DB unless all checks
         pass for all args. Then I do a second pass and make the changes.
         Both scripts set the ignore_user_abort() flag to prevent the user
         from stopping the script and causing a DB inconsistency.
      4. Added trust consistency checks as well. Rather than allow the
         project or group leader to set inconsistent trust levels, I look
         for those and just plain disallow them. You may not give different
         trust levels in different subgroups of the *same* project, and you
         may not give a user a higher trust level in the default group than
         in the subgroups. Both edit and approve make these checks, and the
         code is absolutely awful.
  14. 16 Oct, 2001 1 commit
  15. 05 Sep, 2001 1 commit
  16. 19 Jul, 2001 1 commit
    • Leigh B. Stoller's avatar
      Address Pats comments in email to testbed-ops: · 1728fe2b
      Leigh B. Stoller authored
          From: "Patrick Tullmann 'tullmann'" <tullmann@cs.utah.edu>
          Subject: Re: TESTBED: aclement janos Project Join Request
          First the reply-to: address for approval mails should be
          testbed-ops@fast (right?).
          Second, Austin isn't listed on my testbed user approval page.  I
          assume Mike or a testbed person approved him (which is good because
          who knows when I'd get around to it. :)
          An option like "remove" or "ignore" or something like that for just
          nuking requests without a reply would be useful (I've got some guy
          from yahoo.com who wants to join Janos).
          Also, the date of the join request would be nice to know (e.g., for
          the above, I think he tried joining 4 or 5 months ago).
          he documentation above the table is out of synch with the pull-down
  17. 08 Dec, 2000 1 commit
  18. 15 Nov, 2000 1 commit
  19. 06 Nov, 2000 2 commits