-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Deprecate the current User model for authentication and authorization #4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
Thank you nanuxbe for sharing your idea! We have a lot of them so please be patient. You can see the current queue here. If you'd like to learn about other ways to get this idea more attention, please see this page. Community instructionsFor commenters, please use the emoji reactions on the issue to express support, and/or concern easily. Please use the comments to ask questions or contribute knowledge about the idea. It is unhelpful to post comments of "I'd love this" or "What's the state of this?" Reaction Guide
|
Imo this is many features/ideas in one issue. For instance 2fa would be any ideal candidate independent of whether the user model gets reworked. While I agree that the user model could do with a rework I don't really agree with "it is to complex". I know that this doesn't cover all examples, but if you solely need user/admin set What I'd love to see on a user model if we change it:
|
IMO making the user model part of the start project template is the interesting part here - changing the user model after it has been set up is quite painful. Are there any statistics or anecdotal evidence about beginners missing the recommendation in the docs to use a custom user model? |
I would also suggest that password is optional, and allow for an entrypoint (and simple implementation) for email-only logins (magic link one-time code) |
This happens all the time when beginners come to the Discord asking for help. Generally I agree with apollo13 though in that there is a lot wrapped into this thread and we could do with splitting it out or becoming a bit more focused on what the goal is for this feature. |
Which is also one of the reasons why a new user model should imo strive to cover as many usecases as possible while still staying simple so not many people need to switch the user model. Personally I am not really a fan of swappable models. |
I'm generally fine with this, but the 2FA mention feels shoehorned in. I'd like to see that split off because it feels like we should consider 2fa even without a new user model. |
Code of Conduct
Feature Description
User
that does not have groups or permissions (as in permission model)username
oremail
user
andadmin
could be it)Problem
For a lot of cases, the current user model is not adequate, being either too complex (project requires only "user" and "admin" roles) or too simple (no notion of record-level ownership or hierarchy). It is also missing a unified 2FA mechanism
Request or proposal
proposal
Additional Details
No response
Implementation Suggestions
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: