lack of admin user during install

[Adam Heath-2]

I just did a *seed* install, and did *not* get an admin user.  This is
due to the admin accounts only being created from
applications/securityext/data/*Demo*.  Is this really what is intended?

If so, then ofbiz is not usable with just a seed install, and I
consider that a fail.  You can't even log in to any of the backends.

Having to install all of the demo data, just to get the admin
account(s), seems rather wrong to me.

[David E Jones-3]

You must have missed quite a few messages to not have seen the  
discussion around this...

The short answer is to look at the build.xml file, there is a target  
there for creating your own admin user (thanks to Jacopo for this!).

-David


On Apr 16, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> I just did a *seed* install, and did *not* get an admin user.  This is
> due to the admin accounts only being created from
> applications/securityext/data/*Demo*.  Is this really what is  
> intended?
>
> If so, then ofbiz is not usable with just a seed install, and I
> consider that a fail.  You can't even log in to any of the backends.
>
> Having to install all of the demo data, just to get the admin
> account(s), seems rather wrong to me.

[Adam Heath-2]

David E Jones wrote:
>
> You must have missed quite a few messages to not have seen the
> discussion around this...
>
> The short answer is to look at the build.xml file, there is a target
> there for creating your own admin user (thanks to Jacopo for this!).

Ok, see the ant targets.  I won't do it that way for debian, I'll use
debconf, which is much nicer.

Actually, no, those ant targets fail.  I said there is no admin
*Party*.  The ant targets just create UserLogin and
UserLoginSecurityGroup, but do *not* create the Party.

[Jacopo Cappellato-3]

Hi Adam,

On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> You must have missed quite a few messages to not have seen the
>> discussion around this...
>>
>> The short answer is to look at the build.xml file, there is a target
>> there for creating your own admin user (thanks to Jacopo for this!).
>
> Ok, see the ant targets.  I won't do it that way for debian, I'll use
> debconf, which is much nicer.
>

This may help:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/aQM

> Actually, no, those ant targets fail.  I said there is no admin
> *Party*.  The ant targets just create UserLogin and
> UserLoginSecurityGroup, but do *not* create the Party.

The ant targets should work fine but yes, they don't create a party  
record, which is not available in a framework only setup and should  
not required by the applications.
However, due to a bad ui design it is not possible (unless you use the  
webtools) to create users/permissions/parties just using an  
"administrator" login:
I know Adrian was working in the migration of the "security" screens  
to the webtools application, after this is done it will be possible to  
use the administrator login to create parties/security records etc...

The best solution right now is to use the webtools to add a Party  
record associated to the user.

I hope it helps,

Jacopo

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

FYI I am working on the migrations of the security screens right now.

Jacopo

On Apr 17, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> You must have missed quite a few messages to not have seen the
>>> discussion around this...
>>>
>>> The short answer is to look at the build.xml file, there is a target
>>> there for creating your own admin user (thanks to Jacopo for this!).
>>
>> Ok, see the ant targets.  I won't do it that way for debian, I'll use
>> debconf, which is much nicer.
>>
>
> This may help:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/aQM
>
>> Actually, no, those ant targets fail.  I said there is no admin
>> *Party*.  The ant targets just create UserLogin and
>> UserLoginSecurityGroup, but do *not* create the Party.
>
> The ant targets should work fine but yes, they don't create a party  
> record, which is not available in a framework only setup and should  
> not required by the applications.
> However, due to a bad ui design it is not possible (unless you use  
> the webtools) to create users/permissions/parties just using an  
> "administrator" login:
> I know Adrian was working in the migration of the "security" screens  
> to the webtools application, after this is done it will be possible  
> to use the administrator login to create parties/security records  
> etc...
>
> The best solution right now is to use the webtools to add a Party  
> record associated to the user.
>
> I hope it helps,
>
> Jacopo

[Adam Heath-2]

Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> You must have missed quite a few messages to not have seen the
>>> discussion around this...
>>>
>>> The short answer is to look at the build.xml file, there is a target
>>> there for creating your own admin user (thanks to Jacopo for this!).
>>
>> Ok, see the ant targets.  I won't do it that way for debian, I'll use
>> debconf, which is much nicer.
>>
>
> This may help:
>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/aQM
>
>> Actually, no, those ant targets fail.  I said there is no admin
>> *Party*.  The ant targets just create UserLogin and
>> UserLoginSecurityGroup, but do *not* create the Party.
>
> The ant targets should work fine but yes, they don't create a party
> record, which is not available in a framework only setup and should not
> required by the applications.
> However, due to a bad ui design it is not possible (unless you use the
> webtools) to create users/permissions/parties just using an
> "administrator" login:
> I know Adrian was working in the migration of the "security" screens to
> the webtools application, after this is done it will be possible to use
> the administrator login to create parties/security records etc...
>
> The best solution right now is to use the webtools to add a Party record
> associated to the user.

I have all of framework, applications, and specialpurpose installed.
I ran a seed install, not a demo install.  There is no Party record
for admin, ltdadmin, system; it seems wrong that no parties at all are
created with only a seed install.

Is the proper course of action, when setting ofbiz up in a production
state, to do a seed install, then have any per-company component that
sets up the needed extra accounts/entities?  I'm just trying to get
caught up here.

Are you saying that you can do stuff, with only a UserLogin record
existing, but no Party record?

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

On Apr 17, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Are you saying that you can do stuff, with only a UserLogin record
> existing, but no Party record?

Yes, you shouldn't need a party to perform the admin tasks like  
managing users and in general all the tools available in webtools.

Jacopo