Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: MDL-20660
Type: Improvement Improvement
Status: Open Open
Priority: Trivial Trivial
Assignee: moodle.com
Reporter: Nigel McNie
Votes: 1
Watchers: 7
Operations

Add/Edit UI Mockup to this issue
If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
Moodle

Pass student ID over MNET from Moodle

Created: 29/Oct/09 06:20 AM   Updated: 16/Feb/10 10:41 AM
Component/s: MNet
Affects Version/s: 1.9.6
Fix Version/s: None

Issue Links:
Dependency
 
Relates
 

Participants: Dan Marsden, Eloy Lafuente (stronk7), moodle.com, Nigel McNie and Penny Leach
Security Level: None
Affected Branches: MOODLE_19_STABLE


 Description  « Hide
As per https://eduforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=739&aid=3388&group_id=176 (Mahara bug 3388 - Student ID is not passed from Moodle (via XMLRPC))

When roaming from Moodle 1.9.5+ (20090804) to Mahara 1.1.7testing (2009022620) (via XMLRPC) the student ID is not passed through.

Penny commented:

I think maybe the reason this isn't passed from Moodle, is that
this is a potentially conflictey field.

Local users may well have their own naming scheme that is the
way that institution handles idnumbers and they might not want
remote users coming in with this field, where their idnumbers
may conflict with the local naming scheme.

And also:

Maybe we should file a bug about it on the Moodle tracker and
discuss there having options to send it or not.

So here is the bug . I'm afraid I don't know much about the student ID field, so I leave it to you Moodlers to decide whether it can be passed



 All   Comments   Change History   Version Control      Sort Order: Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Penny Leach added a comment - 29/Oct/09 02:02 PM
FWIW, I think the correct solution is to add a list of fields that are sent/received by both the IDP and the SP, and then use the intersection.

Penny Leach added a comment - 02/Feb/10 12:00 PM
Here's how I think this should work:
  • New setting (multi-select): profile fields to send
  • New setting (multi-select): profile fields to receive

In the config screens, a notice that the intersection of these two will be used.

This could either be:

1. Global (in networking settings)
2. Per networked host

I don't think it belongs to either auth/mnet or enrol/mnet, because both of them create users on remote hosts.

I'm leaning towards making this a global setting, even if it's less flexible, purely because otherwise it's a real pain to set up for sites with multiple hosts

The question remains: what to do about custom profile fields? I think this should be an extra setting in the "profile fields to receive" page with the following options:

  • import custom fields and map them by name, discarding any non-matches
  • import custom fields and map them by name, creating any non-matches (harder?)
  • ignore custom profile fields

The 'sending' page can just add them into the multi-select with a "Custom: " prefix.

Or we could just refuse to send/receive custom profile fields.

So: questions -

1. Where do we think the new setting pages should go? Global or per host?
2. What do we think about custom profile fields?
3. What fields should the upgrade to 2.0 add as the default?


Penny Leach added a comment - 02/Feb/10 12:00 PM
watcher ping - ideas please!

Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment - 02/Feb/10 05:00 PM
Hi,

1) About the global / per host lists of fields, which is the rationale (or use case) to have it per host? Does have sense something like some hosts being more "friendly" or "safer" in order to populate them with, say, institution, while we want to keep that info not pushed to other hosts? If the answer is yes (i.e. if there are reason to have different "field profiles" - uhm!! - then per host).

2) About the lists themselves, I think it's ok to have two. One for user fields and another for custom fields. In any case, I'd never be creating new custom fields automatically. Just the matching intersection strategy always (note that, perhaps, you'll need to match name + type in custom fields, at least it sounds to me I had some problems with that on restore).

3) User tags? Any other user information?

Ciao


Penny Leach added a comment - 03/Feb/10 04:57 AM
Thanks Eloy for commenting

1. Yeah, different friendliness or safeness for different hosts. I think it would potentially be a pain to fill out multiple times though. The most flexible is probably to have a global list, but then have a setting PER HOST to override it from what the global settings are.

2. Yes, I'm sure you're right about the custom profile fields. I wonder actually, if in reality there's any point actually sending them. What do we think of the use-case - can we imagine a case where we'd either want to automatically create custom fields, OR have two sites with the same custom field definitions?

3. Argh, I hadn't thought of that


Dan Marsden added a comment - 15/Feb/10 05:01 PM - edited
sorry for the late comment... just got back from leave.

what happens if the field name is different in each host?
eg a NZ based host with "Country" as the customfield name
and a German based host with "land" as the customfield name
(or a Moodle and Mahara host with differing names for the same thing)

it would be nice if we could obtain via mnet - a list of the available fields and allow them to be mapped to an existing field?

edit - which would require seperate config per host - with sensible default settings.


Penny Leach added a comment - 16/Feb/10 05:52 AM
For the meantime, I'm not doing custom fields. I agree that would need to happen.

Penny Leach added a comment - 16/Feb/10 10:41 AM
Can someone do some testing on this for me? I put it in HEAD today.