custom comment fields and workflow by AD group

[cscott]

Hello.

I have been asked about providing two responses to our customer.

The first is asking for the ability to have DFM/OCUM custom comment fields be cached and usable by WFA.  I can see the value in this, but I can also see where it could generate an enormous potential for problems. Is this even up for consideration, if so, I can submit an RFC/RFE.

The second, which I am pretty sure the answer to is "web services portal", is if we can use AD based groups to restrict access to a particular workflow.  I particularly like this as it means I don't have to manage hundreds of users across what could become hundreds of workflows, but removes another piece to troubleshoot if something goes wrong.

- Scott

[shailaja · Accepted solution]

Hi Scott,

Regarding the first one:

>>The first is asking for the ability to have DFM/OCUM custom comment fields be cached and usable by WFA.  I can see the value in this, but I can also see where it could generate an enormous potential for problems. Is this even up for consideration, if so, I can submit an RFC/RFE.

Can you clarify whether you are requesting this for 7-Mode or Clustered Data ONTAP?

If it is 7-mode, we already have a representation (dictionary entry) and caching for comment fields from DFM/OCUM.

Using this, you can write filters to filter based on comments on objects.

Example: If there was a comment field in DFM named "purpose" or "business_unit" and these comment fields were applied to storage systems, you can write a filter to filter arrays of only a specific business_unit assuming values are set in DFM/OCUM.

Also, there have been some other posts in this area where users have written commands to set comment values for specific objects after provisioning.

See: https://communities.netapp.com/docs/DOC-29349

By the way, could you let us know the type of comment fields and the type of objects it is being set in your customer's use case?

Thanks,

Shailaja

[abrian]

Hi Scott,

I have used the WFA custom comment cache extensively in several workflows I did for a large customer.   Let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Brian

[cscott]

Thank you Shailaja,

     There are multiple uses at this point.  This is currently all 7 mode, our test systems for cDOT are on their way, but won't be ready to test for a month or so.  We have created a customer controlled single instance snapmirror job and the custom comment field would simplify how I present volumes to different business units. 

     We are going to replace a very customized korn shell script(originally written by the customer) that uses config files to determine that admin A can only overwrite vol1, vol3, and vol4, while admin B can overwrite, vol3, vol6, and vol7.  There is no naming convention to identify which volumes are source only, which can be a source and destination, or even which volumes belong to which BU.  Rather than manually building a list of all of those volumes, I am going to set custom comment fields as BU1, BU2, BU3, etc and poll against those.

-Scott

[cscott]

Thanks Brian,

     Now that I know what cache table to look at, I will do some testing around it.  I will definitely reach out to you if I run into any areas that I cannot work through.

-Scott

[shailaja]

Hi Scott

Thanks for the explanation on the usage of comment fields that you are planning to do.

Shailaja

[shailaja]

Hi,

On the second point in this thread:

>>The second, which I am pretty sure the answer to is "web services portal", is if we can use AD based groups to restrict access to a particular workflow.  I particularly like this as it means I don't have to manage hundreds of users across what could become hundreds of workflows, but removes another piece to troubleshoot if something goes wrong.

There is an internal enhancement request filed for the same.

Thanks,

Shailaja