I created a multi-tenant application where each tenant have different set of users. I am trying to implement a functionality where same user might exist in different tenants. Does outsystems provide such functionality or I have to create my custom logic ?
Right now, I did create a user having same username in 2 different tenants and during login I am showing user to select tenants. But on changing tenants and logging to that tenant, the environment doesn't switch to that tenant that user has selected.
Below is the image of the logic of switching tenants and logging in the customer.
During debugging I saw that after executing TenantSwitch action it did change the Site.TenantID property but after User_Login action is reverted to the first tenant not the one user selected.
When you use User_Login(), the system will log you in the first Tenant it finds in the DB that has that username, thus ignoring your TenantSwitch().
So, if you want to login to a specific Tenant in your case, you need to be more explicit and instead use the Login() action - after the tenant switch.
For a thorough explanation of this, with example code, please check out the following deepdive Master Class on Multi-Tenancy starting around the 27:20 minute mark.
This isn't available out of the box as OutSystems assigns users (and all entities) to a specific tenant. Entities belonging to single tenanted modules are assigned to the default tenant.
OutSystems uses a hidden .Tenant_Id attribute on each entity to indicate which tenant that user belongs to. You can unhide this attribute for the users entity by selecting it, clicking More... and then ticking the relevant box in the Advanced tab. You can then access the attribute directly, but be aware this will hinder OutSystems' ability to do some of the stuff it does automatically to ensure that you access tenant specific data.
When you use the User_Login action OutSystems will deduce which tenant to use from the User.Tenant_Id attribute regardless of which tenant you've switched it to previously. The user would need an account for each tenant they need to use, but there's no reason this couldn't be done behind the scenes with OS fetching the correct username before logging in. You'd need to ensure they all stay in sync though, especially the passwords ofc.
Related
Cannot find anywhere on Google Identity Platform docs that clearly describe whether it's possible to assign a single user to multiple tenants. see https://cloud.google.com/identity-platform/docs/multi-tenancy-managing-tenants
My project needs the capability to have a single user be able to login to multiple, separate tenants. Currently, I have to create a new user on every tenant I want to be able to login to. This is not good because each new user I create has a different uid and separate password management. For a single user, I want to be able to maintain the same uid across tenants so the associated user data can be consistent as well.
I was thinking there would be some way to create a user at the project level (not tenant level) and then assign that user to specific tenants?
Some random thoughts: The docs say some things about migrating users between tenants, perhaps that is one way. Also was thinking that creating a tenant user with my existing project-level uid would somehow merge them so the uid and password management is the same?
Edit: I found this conceptual discussion to be helpful: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/403274/multitenancy-with-cross-tenant-users
what I gathered from that link is that SSO is separate from multi-tenancy. So I'm trying to figure out an SSO solution on top of multi-tenancy google idp. Any code solutions/suggestions for how to add SSO on top of multi-tenant google identity platform?
If you need the same user across tenants maybe you should instead rely on the user email, custom claims, federated ID (eg. user.providerData[0].uid). When you get an ID token for the user you have access to this same information regardless of the tenant or user.uid.
I am building a web app (using Laravel but it's irrelevant), that will have multiple tenants with each tenant having its own database. The backend and frontend code end will be common.
We all know the benefits of multitenancy with a dedicated DB per tenant, so I will no go over it again. In my case, it fits my needs 100%.
My question:
If a tenant (client) comes to me for customization (ex. an additional feature, alteration of current feature, removal of feature, etc.) how do I execute this? Obviously I can't alter the code for all tenants, so I guess I will need some kind of filtering or settings where I can toggle features on and off per tenant.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance.
There are couple of ways to implement Multi-Tennancy.
Here I would like to suggest two ways which I implemented previously in my projects.
First Way :
Create the tenant table. Add tenant_id column in every DB table.
Pass the corresponding Tenant id in every request's header part. Backend will get tenant id from header.
Second Way :
Create tenant table with two columns namely tenant_name and tenant_uuid value.
front end send the tenant name in URL like https://tenant1.xyz.com. Create one interceptor which intercept the front end request and get tenant name from the URL. Based on that tenant name you can get particular tenant info from DB.
Now store that tenant info in request context of your application.
you can use that info from wherever you want.
In first way you have to pass tenant id in all layer of application which is not advisable. But in second way you can get tenant id from context so no need to pass it in all the layer.
Now Answer for second question is :
For feature toggling of particular tenant. You can create feature table with columns feature_name, is_enabled and tenant_id.
Now suppose you have to show Dashboard feature to X tenant and do not want to show it Y tenant. Then you just have to do enabled and disabled in this table only.
Is there any way to login other users account for admin user ?
Currently authentication based on Meteor Accounts
I saw this post but didn't working at all now.
The feature is important for us because when user have problem in system then admin need to see it this by simulating user account.
Thanks in advance.
It seems you want to impersonate a user. This means that you want to have Meteor.userId (or this.userId depending on context) reflect the _id of a specific user both on the client and the server.
afaict the only way to do this is to login as the user. Presumably you don't want to ask the user for their password so you have a couple of choices:
Save their existing password, replace it (temporarily) with a password of your choosing, then after you're done impersonating their account, restore their existing password.
You probably don't want to ask the user for their password and you don't need to. All you need to do is set aside Meteor.user.findOne(userId).services.password.bcrypt, then reset the password to your temporary value, then restore the original bcrypt value later.
The downside is that the original user would not be able to login while you are logged-in. Plus it's really hacky.
Extend Meteor's Accounts package to provide impersonation capability in a more elegant manner.
You might also look at validateLoginAttempt. The docs are unclear as to whether a failed login attempt could be overridden with a successful one but if it could then that would provide another pathway to solve your problem.
Instead of logging in as the users, which requires their password and which is a total no-no, you may use rather alanning:roles and allow the admin to assign the role of any user in order to draw views based the user's role.
This requires a well designed role system.
As a plus you could then at least load the documents associated with the user who you want to support.
This requires a well designed document and data model.
But generally spoken you should rather focus on writing good tests (test driven development) for components as unit tests, integration tests and UI tests.
This will reduce the need to manually view the app as an end user a lot.
The most common end user problems can be reduced by creating a good knowledge base like a wiki or video tutorials.
Even if then an error occurs in the end user side, I would rather try to implement a well designed error log that allows users automatically create tickets on error which also include the error stack.
All the above methods are to be favored before logging in AS THE USER.
As #Jankpunkt has already mentioned alanning-roles I can add something you can use without installing any external package.
Just keep a type key in the profile object of the users collection. Then define some types like 1 for super-admin, 2 for admin, 3 for general etc. Then check the authorisation of particular action by checking the value of user.profile.type key.
Caveats: Make sure you are checking the type in server side. By default profile field is writable from the client end, so if you are putting type field in the profile object make sure that you are not allowing users to modify users collection in the client end.
Here is how to restrict client end update in users collection:
Meteor.users.deny({
update() { return true; }
});
Read more on roles and permissions here:
https://guide.meteor.com/accounts.html#roles-and-permissions
I am building an app with Role based Security. I have built my Record Types (Projects, Accounts, HistoryLog, Financial, Customer, etc) in Cloudkit Dashboard, and I have created Security Roles as well. I have roles named: Executive and DeptManager. I have assigned to the Record Types the appropriate access by Role. I have also assigned to the user in the special Record Type "Users" the role of either Executive or DeptManager.
I have successfully accessed and manipulated data in the Record Types. Now I am implementing Role based viewing in the App. So on the first view there is a log in "like" feature, so after i discover the user, I want to display the Roles of that user in a PickerView for them to select. Once they select a role I will them take them to the appropriate view. For example I may have the role of both DeptManager and Executive. If today I select DeptManager, I will be taken to a view that allows me to enters Production Metrics. If another day I select Executive, I will see performance metrics for all the departments that report to me.
Here is an image from CloudKit Dashboard showing the info I'm trying to retrieve. Thanks in advance for any advice.
Currently it is not possible to get the roles a user is in. At the moment the information that is returned from the discoverUserInfoWithUserRecordID is very limited. I also hope it will be extended soon. Currently you only get a userRecordID, first name and last name. If you do want such functionality, then the only solution is creating a shadow registration which you could query. You then would have a challenge keeping these 2 in sync. That has to be done manually.
In my application I need to register users. The users can be any of three: admin, client and general. They have different attributes (Admin may have only name, client may have company address and so on). The default MVC membership scheme is okay but how can it be extended to register more information during registration time? Or should I use custom membership?
I need to have a record of clients and general users with clientID or generalID.
The default MVC membership scheme is okay but how can it be extended
to register more information during registration time? Or should I use
custom membership?
I think too many people, yourself included, are expecting to get too much from the default ASP.NET Membership Provider. It was never designed to handle application-specific things, like what company your customer works for, your admin's name, and so on. It's main purpose is storing passwords for authentication.
Sure, the password needs to be linked to a username, so that there can be a 2-key authentication pair. Sometimes you also need the user's email address, when it is different from their username, in order to contact the user regarding their password. But don't store anything else about your users in the membership store. Store it in your application database.
In order to join data between your application and the membership provider, use the membership provider's UserName or ProviderKey as a column in one of your database tables. You end up with 2 entities which are not explicitly related. You can even have your SqlMembershipProvider implemented in a separate database from your application database. Even if they are in the same database, avoid having a foreign key between any of the provider tables and your application tables. This muddies the waters between what you own, and what you "outsource" to the membership provider.
You end up with 2 physically isolated representations of your user. One is the MembershipProvider, which contains a password for your user. The other is your application, which contains other business-specific details. The two are only logically associated within your application. After you authenticate a user with the membership API, their UserName and/pr ProviderKey become available to your application. You can then use that piece of data to query your app database and get the additional details. This is where you might put something like the clientID or generalID you mentioned.
If you look at the System.Web.Security.Member* API, this should make things clearer. It does one thing really well -- associating your users with passwords and other information related to password resetting (like the email address, question and answer, etc). So outsource just the password provider, and rely on your application to do the important stuff.
You could customise the default profile provider or create your own... Follow this reference
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8zs47k7y
You can add new properties to the profile for anything in the web.config too
I highly suggest creating your own membership roles. It's dead simple and nothing can beat the flexibility of having your own implementation.
Here's a video I made a while back showing you step by step how to achieve this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsxUsyMSGeA
The gist of it is, you create your own AuthorizeAttribute and create your own roles; protecting each controller or even individual Action methods along the way.
The one drawback of this approach is that you can determine what Role a user has in your system, but not what a Role can do in your system. Does that make sense?
There are other choices if you need to edit what a role can do at runtime.