Open
Conversation
…int and easier to digest
… guides for near-future use. WIP
…e; prepare ground for importing users;
…-first-steps to sync it with latest master changes
…lish phrasing here and there
…change heading structure for clarity; describe mapping naming policices
Because we decided they need to be versioned and thus kept in midpoint/reference. The deleted stubs were worthless in their current state and, thus, could be safely deleted as such.
We don't have a suitable tutorials yet as I had to put the work on GUI guides section on hold to create it in the versioned docs section.
Also adjust (grammar/language) in the Multiple source article.
edison23
commented
Jan 7, 2026
| . If the account in the secondary system is synchronized to midPoint first, create a user with minimal information in the _draft_ lifecycle state. | ||
| ** Set _unmatched_ situation reaction to _add focus_ to create a new midPoint users if they do not exist yet. | ||
| ** Set _unlinked_ situation reaction to _link_ to ensure the accounts for existing midPoint users will be linked. | ||
| ** Set the mappings as _weak_ and the lifecycle state to _draft_. |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@licehammer : I am not sure I understand the reason for setting the mapping lifecycle state to draft . I feel I am missing something because according to what I know, a configuration item in draft is not used at all. I may have rewritten the sentence wrong but the original sentence of yours has the same meaning, I think.
(BTW, I hereby deeply apologize for moving and making changes to the file in the same commit in which the move was not picked up as a rename but as a delete & create.)
Consequence of Evolveum/midpoint/4079bef4db1039239c468722b0ff1628b6f093e6 Which was possible thanks to restructuring the article so that anchoring to that heading is not needed anymore.
The redirects have been decided based on the content similarity. Sometimes (e.g., in the case of audience), the content is not under the 1st heading in the target page, and other times, the old big article was split into multiple articles or even sections (Assessment). In such a case, the redirect leads to the first section.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR presents the completely reworked First steps methodology. My goal was to make the guide work as a standalone series of articles (modules) that are independent on the video presentations in the original MID-301 First steps training (unlike the original 6-article First steps methodology we currently have in the Documentation). One of the reasons is that I believe it may be for many users more comfortable and beneficial to follow a textual guide rather than watching videos because following text guides supports the learning process better, I think. I used the original training as a foundation for the content in the First steps guide I have written.
I would hereby like to kindly ask for a review of my work here. I would be grateful for validation (or rejection for that matter) of the learning flow, the value for learners, and for pieces of advice on what can possibly be improved in that regard, as I find the flow and learning value the most important aspects of such a guide. However, I will be happy to hear any remarks, of course.
I am assigning this to you, @dejavix , since the original course is your work, but please feel free to delegate as you see fit; I am aware it is a lot of content and the time invenstment is substantial. Obviously, I count on the fact the review may take some time, that is completely fine.
I am tagging for visibility @licehammer and @jirihuf .