Split of Proposal and User Databases

NRAO Interactive Services Modification Request 7 T1 2010

---

---

1. Introduction

2. Background

We have many tools that need to authenticate against our user database. Already (at least for EVLA), we have PST, PBT, OPT, AAT, and we're soon to have several more, including PFT, OST, and potentially some of our more internal tools. In addition, VOA is around the corner, and our authentication will need to be rationalized with that. Finally, we have other, non-scientific, uses for the user database in the observatory that could potentially take advantage of having access to it (the reservation system [BOS] is the one we are working on now).

It is clear that we want the user database mirrored to the different sites to allow for local access (see the item in the PoR this cycle for this). But in this mirroring, at least for some sites and applications, it makes little to no sense to have to take the full proposal database just to get the user portion of it (I assume this is just a different table in the database, but don't know the technical details). For instance, Charlottesville will want to mirror the user database there for things like BOS, but they have no interest in the proposals. For us here in Socorro, we need both, but not all applications need access to both.

3. Requirements

* The user and proposal databases should be fully separated. By separate it means really in different databases; i.e., different connection strings, usernames, and passwords are required.

4. Design

Technical lead should provide a brief description of how this will be implemented in the code.

5. Deployment Checklist

Documentation? Systems/hardware/networking things needed for deployment?

6. Test Plan

6.1 Internal Testing

6.2 Sponsor Testing

6.3 Integration/Regression Tests

---

Signatures

APPROVED: I acknowledge that my request is fully contained in this MR, and if the Open Sky (or other NIS or PST developers) deliver exactly what I specified, I will be happy.

ACCEPTED: I acknowledge that I have validated the completed code according to the acceptance tests, and I am happy with the results.

Written	- - - - -
Checked	- - - - -
Approved by Scientific Sponsor	- - - - -
Accepted/Delivered by Sponsor	- - - - -

Symbols:

• Use %X% if MR is not complete (will display )
• Use %Y% if MR iscomplete (will display )

---

Discussion Area

-- BryanButler - 2010-03-19