Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reuse config wizard forms for system management #1034

Closed
allisonking opened this issue Aug 31, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1082
Closed

Reuse config wizard forms for system management #1034

allisonking opened this issue Aug 31, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1082
Assignees

Comments

@allisonking
Copy link
Contributor

allisonking commented Aug 31, 2022

Is your feature request related to a specific problem?

System management needs a way to create systems manually. We should reuse the config wizard components as much as possible.

Describe the solution you'd like

These are the components we should be able to reuse

This ticket should cover pulling them into their new location and making sure everything works.

Describe alternatives you've considered, if any

A description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.

Additional context

Design: https://www.figma.com/file/NeFvOOb1RT2fcdqZT0vBF2/Fidesctl-Management-UI?node-id=2658%3A45935

@mfbrown
Copy link

mfbrown commented Sep 9, 2022

In addition to the fields included in the wizard, this screen should include extra fields to truly function as a CRUD screen for systems. From the API below, include a field for everything EXCEPT:

  • registry_id
  • meta
  • fidesctl_meta

We may add inputs for these in the future, but for now don't need them.

{
  "fides_key": "string",
  "organization_fides_key": "default_organization",
  "tags": [
    "string"
  ],
  "name": "string",
  "description": "string",
  "registry_id": 0,
  "meta": {
    "additionalProp1": "string",
    "additionalProp2": "string",
    "additionalProp3": "string"
  },
  "fidesctl_meta": {
    "resource_id": "string",
    "endpoint_address": "string",
    "endpoint_port": "string"
  },
  "system_type": "string",
  "data_responsibility_title": "Controller",
  "privacy_declarations": [
    {
      "name": "string",
      "data_categories": [
        "string"
      ],
      "data_use": "string",
      "data_qualifier": "aggregated.anonymized.unlinked_pseudonymized.pseudonymized.identified",
      "data_subjects": [
        "string"
      ],
      "dataset_references": [
        "string"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "system_dependencies": [
    "string"
  ],
  "joint_controller": {
    "name": "",
    "address": "",
    "email": "",
    "phone": ""
  },
  "third_country_transfers": [
    "string"
  ],
  "administrating_department": "Not defined",
  "data_protection_impact_assessment": {
    "is_required": false
  }
}

@allisonking allisonking self-assigned this Sep 12, 2022
@allisonking
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mfbrown should these extra fields only show up in the system management flow, or also in the config wizard?

@mfbrown
Copy link

mfbrown commented Sep 12, 2022

If possible, I'd like to constrain to the management UI for now. Idea being that the wizard is more of a quick start.

@allisonking
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sounds good! I believe these would be the missing fields, and I did my best to guess what type of form input they should have. Let me know what you think:

  • data_responsibility_title: select dropdown
  • privacy_declarations --> dataset_references ? : select dropdown of existing datasets?
  • system_dependencies: select dropdown of existing systems?
  • joint_controller --> name, address, email, phone: regular text inputs, but this can be an array, so waiting for design?
  • third_country_transfers: multi select (same as the one on datasets for geography)
  • administrating_department regular text input
  • data_protection_impact_assessment: --> is_required, progress, link: radio button yes/no for is_required, text input for progress and link. also an array, so waiting for design

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants