User groups / roles

[progval]

This is sometimes useful to give a bunch of users the same capabilities. What about creating user groups to assign some capabilities to multiple users at once?

We could also create pseudo-groups, like people with +o mode (this has been asked often to give capabilities to people with +o), ... Also, assigning hostmasks to groups/roles (eg. !@projectname/* to use freenode cloaks)

[tz18]

I also think this would be a great thing to have.

[Mikaela]

This would be nice to have, I have 20+ users from mostly two channels and they are at IRCnet, so no services.

How would this work? More commands to the User plugin or a new Group plugin to manage them? I think I prefer to user, but how would it work with it? Make user list show groups and have default groups \@all where everyone belongs to and \@ungrouped who are not in any other group than \@all.

And how do you add groups and where? data/groups.conf sounds like a good place, but data/users.conf probably must at least mention the existense of groups. Adding groups, would it be like user group add <group>[ <username>] where if <username is not given, the group is created?

And giving capabilities to the group? Would it need a new command or how would the groups be named? I suggested \@ prefix before as config list has them, but Atheme GroupServ uses ! so would it be admin capability add \@somechannelgroup #channel,op?

PS: ignore the \'s, I am trying to override @-mentioning, but failing.

[progval]

Why create group, instead of just assuming every name is a valid group, as we do for capabilities?

On 03/08/2014 15:23, Mikaela Suomalainen wrote:

This would be nice to have, I have 20+ users from mostly two channels and they are at IRCnet, so no services.

How would this work? More commands to the User plugin or a new Group plugin to manage them? I think I prefer to user, but how would it work with it? Make user list show groups and have default groups \@all where everyone belongs to and \@ungrouped who are not in any other group than \@all.

And how do you add groups and where? data/groups.conf sounds like a good place, but data/users.conf probably must at least mention the existense of groups. Adding groups, would it be like user group add <group>[ <username>] where if <username is not given, the group is created?

And giving capabilities to the group? Would it need a new command or how would the groups be named? I suggested \@ prefix before as config list has them, but Atheme GroupServ uses ! so would it be admin capability add \@somechannelgroup #channel,op?

PS: ignore the \'s, I am trying to override @-mentioning, but failing.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/ProgVal/Limnoria/issues/471#issuecomment-50990356

[Mikaela]

So group = user?

[progval]

No, why?

On 03/08/2014 19:18, Mikaela Suomalainen wrote:

So group = user?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/ProgVal/Limnoria/issues/471#issuecomment-50996414

[Mikaela]

Why create group, instead of just assuming every name is a valid group,

I don't understand this.

as we do for capabilities?

Or do you mean that capabilities become groups? I don't understand.

[progval]

One does not create capabilities, there is not list of capabilities. Just names. I mean to do the same thing for groups: one does not create a group, they all exist by default, and you just assign users to groups, and capabilities to groups.

Hmm… by writting “assign […] capabilities to groups”, I realize that we would have to create a database for groups to store them…

On 03/08/2014 19:47, Mikaela Suomalainen wrote:

Why create group, instead of just assuming every name is a valid group, I don't understand this.

as we do for capabilities? Or do you mean that capabilities become groups? I don't understand.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/ProgVal/Limnoria/issues/471#issuecomment-50997373

[Mikaela]

How would you assing users to group and capabilities to groups? And that also needs some way to remove users and capabilities from groups.

[Mikaela]

Use case: capabilities.default False.

More information in logs of #limnoria on 2014-11-13 (UTC+2), does anyone of involved people want to say anything here?

[jaybe-jekyll]

I would find Capabilities Groups helpful.

My use case is to begin configuration with deny by default, disallowing any access to commands or responses to/from public/everyone.

For example, Public/Everyone would (only) possess capabilities as set upon the Everyone Group.

• Example:
  • ~capabilities add "Everyone" "whoami, factoids.*, messageparser.*"
  • note .* indicates inclusion of every command within the Plugin.
• Example:
  • ~capabilities add "Channel, Acquaintances" "Everyone@, Channel, Quotes"
  • note @ indicates inheritance of Group@ capabilities