Reservation Horizons per User Type

[abuckles-uci]

Hello,

We have some code in our custom plugin that allows tool reservation horizons to be set per user type. For example, someone who works for an external company may have a different reservation horizon for a tool than a user who is from the university. Currently, our plugin has the user types hard-coded, but this could possibly be made more generic to dynamically get all types in NEMO_usertype. Is this something that could be useful being built-in to NEMO? Please correct me if this is already a built-in feature of NEMO.

Thanks,
Aaron

[rptmat57]

This is an interesting idea.

I am wondering how you did it, and where do you make changes? Are you using inlines in the django admin Tool section, or a completely separate model?
And for validation, do you check that all user types do have a value for the policy, or do you still use the default for everyone who doesn't have a type policy set?
If you are using a separate model, I guess the way to do it would be to use the default value, unless overwritten in the separate model. i.e. default is 14 for everyone, but you can go to the separate section of detailed admin and create an override for each of the policy options by selecting one or more user types for which this would apply.

Anyway, we would probably be interested in adding something like that, as long as it's done in a way that makes sense and is flexible. Using UserType probably makes sense here. Not sure if we'd want to use Groups, Roles or Project types for that...

[abuckles-uci]

Our current system is very much "hard-coded". Meaning we have a custom model in a plugin that has columns for each user type. Ideally this would be implemented where it's dynamic, depending on which user types are available. I think it would make most sense to revert to the tool's reservation horizon if no value is set for a user type.

If allowing other types to be selected like groups, roles, etc. then we would probably need some way to prioritize between them. For our use case, user type is enough, but I could see how these additional options could be helpful.

[rptmat57]

Yes, I think keeping them in tool as default is the right way to go.

Then, a new model, something like ToolReservationPolicyOverride with a dropdown list of the options, a char field or integer field for the new value, and a multi select for user types would be a way to start.
There would need to be validation to ensure no overlap between the user types selected (cannot have more than one override with the same user type in the list)

Groups or others could be added later.

[abuckles-uci]

For the "dropdown list of the options" are you thinking this as a string field that could contain different types like reservation_horizon? This would allow it to be expanding with more options like missed_reservation_threshold.

[rptmat57]

Yes exactly