Support for LDAP and AD Group sync #580

@pbodnar commented on GitHub (Feb 29, 2020):

@divansantana, yes, the gitea-group-sync looks like a promising and logical approach until something better gets implemented. I. e. a cron job needs to be setup that does the following:

Iterate over existing Organizations and Teams.
For every Team, lookup matching Users via a LDAP query.
Add / remove corresponding Users in the Team.

For steps 1 and 3, Gitea API (RESTful services) can be used. Not sure if direct access Gitea database would be safe as well. Anyway, for bigger structures the queries to LDAP could be possibly optimized...

Any more ideas?

@pbodnar commented on GitHub (Feb 29, 2020): @divansantana, yes, the *gitea-group-sync* looks like a promising and logical approach until something better gets implemented. I. e. a cron job needs to be setup that does the following: 1. Iterate over existing Organizations and Teams. 2. For every Team, lookup matching Users via a LDAP query. 3. Add / remove corresponding Users in the Team. For steps 1 and 3, Gitea API (RESTful services) can be used. Not sure if direct access Gitea database would be safe as well. Anyway, for bigger structures the queries to LDAP could be possibly optimized... Any more ideas?

GiteaMirror commented

@Elias481 commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2020):

We are also wanting this feature.
Optimally there would be a field on a team to link it to an explicit ldap group or userfilter.

Otherwise the gitea-group-sync is a quite usefull approach and would be sufficent for at least something. It should include a separate placeholder for organisation and team-name then at least.
And possibly consolidate the list of resulting queries first because I think it wil be quite common to have some same teams in different organisations.

@Elias481 commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2020): We are also wanting this feature. Optimally there would be a field on a team to link it to an explicit ldap group or userfilter. Otherwise the gitea-group-sync is a quite usefull approach and would be sufficent for at least something. It should include a separate placeholder for organisation and team-name then at least. And possibly consolidate the list of resulting queries first because I think it wil be quite common to have some same teams in different organisations.

GiteaMirror commented

@pgollor commented on GitHub (May 1, 2020):

We are also wanting this feature.

@pgollor commented on GitHub (May 1, 2020): We are also wanting this feature.

GiteaMirror commented

@eummitu commented on GitHub (Jun 12, 2020):

We also want this feature

@eummitu commented on GitHub (Jun 12, 2020): We also want this feature

GiteaMirror commented

@n-st commented on GitHub (Jun 16, 2020):

To express interest, please use the "+1" reaction feature on the first post (as several users have done already). Comments should be preferred for on-topic suggestions and discussions, to avoid unnecessary clutter and notifications for everyone subscribed to this issue.

@n-st commented on GitHub (Jun 16, 2020): To express interest, please use the "+1" reaction feature on the first post (as several users have done already). Comments should be preferred for on-topic suggestions and discussions, to avoid unnecessary clutter and notifications for everyone subscribed to this issue.

GiteaMirror commented

@husnusenturk commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2020):

This feaute will be very usefull.

@husnusenturk commented on GitHub (Jun 22, 2020): This feaute will be very usefull.

GiteaMirror commented

@EmrahKK commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2020):

+1

@EmrahKK commented on GitHub (Aug 18, 2020): +1

GiteaMirror commented

@zeripath commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2020):

There is: https://github.com/tws-inc/gitea-group-sync

@zeripath commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2020): There is: https://github.com/tws-inc/gitea-group-sync

GiteaMirror commented

@pgollor commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2020):

I know this project but it didd't work very well for my gitea server and a native integration in gitea itself would be better.

@pgollor commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2020): I know this project but it didd't work very well for my gitea server and a native integration in gitea itself would be better.

GiteaMirror commented

@zeripath commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2020):

OK - suggest a workable UI and how it could work then it could potentially be implemented.

@zeripath commented on GitHub (Nov 8, 2020): OK - suggest a workable UI and how it could work then it could potentially be implemented.

GiteaMirror commented

@localleon commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2020):

It's semms like Gitea Group-Sync is currently the only project that provides this kind of functionality for the Gitea Project.

We are currently looking for maintainers, because tws-inc can't provide ressources for the project. We are discussing in tws-inc/gitea-group-sync#9

Is this still a feature that the community would like to see in the official Gitea Project?

@localleon commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2020): It's semms like [Gitea Group-Sync](https://github.com/tws-inc/gitea-group-sync) is currently the only project that provides this kind of functionality for the Gitea Project. We are currently looking for maintainers, because tws-inc can't provide ressources for the project. We are discussing in [tws-inc/gitea-group-sync#9](https://github.com/tws-inc/gitea-group-sync/issues/9) Is this still a feature that the community would like to see in the official Gitea Project?

GiteaMirror commented

@lachnerd commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2021):

With 1.13.0 there was a "check for LDAP group membership (#10869)" added - how does this relate to this feature request ?

@lachnerd commented on GitHub (Jan 14, 2021): With 1.13.0 there was a "check for LDAP group membership (#10869)" added - how does this relate to this feature request ?

GiteaMirror commented

@pgollor commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2021):

With 1.13.0 there was a "check for LDAP group membership (#10869)" added - how does this relate to this feature request ?

I think this is only for the login and not to check the rights for a organisation, or not?

@pgollor commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2021): > > > With 1.13.0 there was a "check for LDAP group membership (#10869)" added - how does this relate to this feature request ? I think this is only for the login and not to check the rights for a organisation, or not?

GiteaMirror commented

@svenseeberg commented on GitHub (Jan 19, 2021):

How should this work in general? Some programs have a mapping field, where for example internal attributes are mapped to LDAP attributes. Mapping LDAP groups to Gitea organizations could work the same way. We would then require an input field in the LDAP settings, which for example contains a JSON with the following information: {"My_Gitea_Org": {"team": "my_Org_team", "ldap-group": "cn=MyGroup,cn=groups,dc=example,dc=org"}}. This does not sound overly complicated to implement. Alternatively, organizations would need a field in their settings where one could enter LDAP group names?

@svenseeberg commented on GitHub (Jan 19, 2021): How should this work in general? Some programs have a mapping field, where for example internal attributes are mapped to LDAP attributes. Mapping LDAP groups to Gitea organizations could work the same way. We would then require an input field in the LDAP settings, which for example contains a JSON with the following information: `{"My_Gitea_Org": {"team": "my_Org_team", "ldap-group": "cn=MyGroup,cn=groups,dc=example,dc=org"}}`. This does not sound overly complicated to implement. Alternatively, organizations would need a field in their settings where one could enter LDAP group names?

GiteaMirror commented

@Morriz commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021):

Why is this still open after 4 years ;(

@Morriz commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021): Why is this still open after 4 years ;(

GiteaMirror commented

@lunny commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021):

PRs are welcome!

@lunny commented on GitHub (Apr 19, 2021): PRs are welcome!

GiteaMirror commented

@Elias481 commented on GitHub (Apr 26, 2021):

@lunn

PRs are welcome!

but would that have meant, after another 3 years it's still not merged because of whatever?

@Elias481 commented on GitHub (Apr 26, 2021): @lunn > PRs are welcome! but would that have meant, after another 3 years it's still not merged because of whatever?

GiteaMirror commented

@jolheiser commented on GitHub (Apr 26, 2021):

but would that have meant, after another 3 years it's still not merged because of whatever?

This is an incredibly unhelpful comment.

None of us are paid to work on this project, and we try to accommodate PRs as much as we can when they come in.

I suggest putting a bounty on the issue if you would like to incentivize someone to pick it up.

@jolheiser commented on GitHub (Apr 26, 2021): > but would that have meant, after another 3 years it's still not merged because of whatever? This is an incredibly unhelpful comment. None of us are paid to work on this project, and we try to accommodate PRs as much as we can when they come in. I suggest putting a bounty on the issue if you would like to incentivize someone to pick it up.

GiteaMirror commented

@Elias481 commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2021):

but would that have meant, after another 3 years it's still not merged because of whatever?

This is an incredibly unhelpful comment.

None of us are paid to work on this project, and we try to accommodate PRs as much as we can when they come in.

I suggest putting a bounty on the issue if you would like to incentivize someone to pick it up.

You are completely right. I did not really meant this project, on the other hand you also see it here, that kind of slowing things in regards to very helpful ERs.
But definitely, much to many enterprises just leech open source and but it, but not invest even some time the last year's. Horrible wronglyness. On the other hand we have perfect IT above, so for me personally same same is.

@Elias481 commented on GitHub (Apr 30, 2021): > > but would that have meant, after another 3 years it's still not merged because of whatever? > > This is an incredibly unhelpful comment. > > None of us are paid to work on this project, and we try to accommodate PRs as much as we can when they come in. > > I suggest putting a bounty on the issue if you would like to incentivize someone to pick it up. You are completely right. I did not really meant this project, on the other hand you also see it here, that kind of slowing things in regards to very helpful ERs. But definitely, much to many enterprises just leech open source and but it, but not invest even some time the last year's. Horrible wronglyness. On the other hand we have perfect IT above, so for me personally same same is.

GiteaMirror commented