Hi,
I’m in the early stages of an implementation of RT for our organisation
using 3.8 and have just completed the account auto-creation logic for
our (slightly non-standard) auth environment.
Have to say it was trivial to do. Simple combination of WebExternalAuth
set to 1 and a custom “autohandler/NewUser” callback which populates the
fields of the newly created user from another data source. Couldn’t be
simpler.
However, to get it to work I had to augment the NewUser callback call
slightly. I needed the username in order to look up the additional
information and it wasn’t being passed through. So I added “User =>
$user” to the list of parameters passed to the callback.
Does anybody see any potential issues with this that would prevent its
inclusion upstream?
Should I be submitting the patch through RT’s own bug tracker? Or
attaching it to a mail like this one? I’m new to the list so I’m not
sure what the convention is yet.
Thanks,
Olly
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Please mail it to rt-bugs@bestpractical.com. Thanks!On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:32 PM, “Olly Stephens” Olly.Stephens@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
I’m in the early stages of an implementation of RT for our
organisation
using 3.8 and have just completed the account auto-creation logic for
our (slightly non-standard) auth environment.
Have to say it was trivial to do. Simple combination of
WebExternalAuth
set to 1 and a custom “autohandler/NewUser” callback which populates
the
fields of the newly created user from another data source. Couldn’t
be
simpler.
However, to get it to work I had to augment the NewUser callback call
slightly. I needed the username in order to look up the additional
information and it wasn’t being passed through. So I added “User =>
$user” to the list of parameters passed to the callback.
Does anybody see any potential issues with this that would prevent its
inclusion upstream?
Should I be submitting the patch through RT’s own bug tracker? Or
attaching it to a mail like this one? I’m new to the list so I’m not
sure what the convention is yet.
Thanks,
Olly
–
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose
the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store
or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
List info: The rt-devel Archives