On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to start a discussion around the import/export of
> installations in UPS. To track all the tasks, we have a ticket[1] also
> containing some sub-tasks.
> <
https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/b863b80380f8ed16ad7b#scope>Scope
>
> For now we stick to installations, meanning we can import or export
> installations from a particular Variant. Import/Export for Variants will
> maybe come later but due to some security issues (mainly for iOS
> cert/passphrase) it's on hold.
>
>
<
https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/b863b80380f8ed16ad7b#import-servic...
> Service
>
> That's an easy one ;) since the service already exist [2]. It's a REST
> service and it uses the VariantId/Secret combination to authenticate.
>
> Data format looks like :
>
> [
> {
> "deviceToken" : "someTokenString",
> "deviceType" : "iPad",
> "operatingSystem" : "iOS",
> "osVersion" : "6.1.2",
> "alias" : "someUsername or email adress...",
> "categories" : ["football", "sport"]
> },
> {
> "deviceToken" : "someOtherTokenString",
> ...
> },
> ...
> ]
>
>
>
<
https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/b863b80380f8ed16ad7b#export-servic...
> Service
>
> Like import, it will use the variantId/secret combo to authenticate and
> retrieve the right variant to export the installations. The data structure
> format would of course looks like the one used for import.
>
>
<
https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/b863b80380f8ed16ad7b#output-format...
> format
>
> How should provide the exported data ? I need your input here 1. Raw Json
> ? 2. Json file ? 3. Zip / tarball ?
>
Gzipped json file download sounds as easily accessible for browsers.
> <
https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/b863b80380f8ed16ad7b#ui>UI
>
> UI should be a *nice to have*
>
> I would suggest to add 2 items (import and export) in the contextual menu
> that you can see in this screenshot :
>
>
>
<
https://camo.githubusercontent.com/94f19f69e50a217e89363aefe52912c9b33f63...
>
> For import, the user will have a file input and feedback on how many
> installations were imported. For export, the user just have to press an
> export button
>
+1 sounds good, we just need to decide whether block the user when
uploading / downloading
I guess:
a) downloading - do not block UI, downloading is a separate activity
b) uploading - block the UI, offer progress and error indication and
ability to cancel the process (transactional? - cancelling means no
installation is imported?)
I want to bring up this point again by exposing the current situation.
The import process is async on the server side :
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/jaxrs...
And as you can see we always return a 200 Ok .
So what do we want to do here :
1. Just inform the Front End that the import process has started (with no
feedback on success or failure)
2. Make it blocking on the server side :/ ?
3. Add some Push feature to inform the frontend of the import result
In the PR I'm about to submit, option 1 will be there. But based on the
discussion, it will of course be updated if needed.
>
>
<
https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/b863b80380f8ed16ad7b#migration-iss...
> issues
>
> So, that is a very important point that I would like to discuss. Even if
> we are able to import installations, the *variantID_ and the
> __variantSecret* will not match with those that are in the Clients.
>
> Imagine the following scenario : I export 15000 installations, my
> datacenter burns, I create a new UPS instance, with a new Push App and a
> new Variant (so new VariantID and VariantSecret), then I inport the
> installations. Well, my 15000 clients will point to the wrong variant. For
> sure, they can be updated but that might not always be an option.
>
> That is why I would like suggest the following change : Make *VariantId*
> and *VariantSecret* editable, so after someone has done an import he
> can change the values of the variants so it matches the clients.
>
> I know we had this discussion before, but in the future we might want to
> change the naming around VariantId and VariantSecret, to me it sounds more
> like *variantAPIKey* / *variantAPISecret*
>
> wdyt ?
> <
https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/b863b80380f8ed16ad7b#security>
> Security
>
> As said before, import/export uses variantId/variantSecret to
> authenticate. So if someone has access to these keys he could make a
> malicious import of 500k installations. What should we do for that ? We
> could give this access only to authenticated "console" users but then it
> would be hard to expose import/export as rest service (because of KC
> implication)
>
> Please comment, ask questions , be crazy ...
>
> Sebi
>
> [1]
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-978
>
> [2]
>
http://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-unifiedpush-rest/registry/device/...
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev