Arvados

Review comments:

• Everything looks good and worked as expected (except the below concern)

• I am quite concerned about the user experience. A user can share a project with anonymous users using workbench. However, this is doable even when anonymous browsing is not enabled. I think this will be quite confusing to an end user (especially now that it will be open to “all” users). I think we should not include the anonymous group and anonymous user in the sharing popup selections when anonymous browsing is not enabled.

Radhika Chippada wrote:

• I am quite concerned about the user experience. A user can share a project with anonymous users using workbench. However, this is doable even when anonymous browsing is not enabled. I think this will be quite confusing to an end user (especially now that it will be open to “all” users). I think we should not include the anonymous group and anonymous user in the sharing popup selections when anonymous browsing is not enabled.

Done in f102390c and ready for another look. Thanks.

Brett, thanks for the update. Looks very good as far as sharing with groups is concerned.

Do we also want remove the "anonymous user" from the "share with users" selection list? It is true that the anonymous user is only included in the list for admin users and hence is not as big a deal as the groups with inactive user support. Your call since it is for admin users only.

Thanks. Everything else LGTM.

Radhika Chippada wrote:

Do we also want remove the "anonymous user" from the "share with users" selection list? It is true that the anonymous user is only included in the list for admin users and hence is not as big a deal as the groups with inactive user support. Your call since it is for admin users only.

Radhika,

I agree that this would be nice, but I also agree that it's lower priority, since only admins see it, and it's not the documented way to share things. Because the original bug here is blocking use of the sharing feature in general, and was reported by users, I've gone ahead and merged the branch in its current state. I encourage you to file a new bug to keep separate track of this suggestion. I'm hopeful that, before we get to that, or as part of the work of implementing it, we can improve the filtering options a bit, so that we don't have to rely on checking free text fields like I did for the first round.

Thanks.