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

[Feature Request]: Multiple Company Support for LDAP Sync #12645

Open
yusuf-basith opened this issue Mar 10, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

[Feature Request]: Multiple Company Support for LDAP Sync #12645

yusuf-basith opened this issue Mar 10, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@yusuf-basith
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

With the latest version of Snipe-IT (6.0.14), we can assign an OU for a location to assign users to the Location during the LDAP sync automatically.

However, when Multiple company support is enabled, it is not possible for the admin users to find the new users, as they are not assigned to any company. The super admin has to assign the user to the Company so that the admins can see them.

Describe the solution you'd like

It would be great if you could provide an LDAP Search OU field similar to the Locations for the Companies also.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Only Manual Assignment.

Additional context

No response

@sangdrax8
Copy link

I just ran into this exact issue my self. Every time my admin syncs, the users are not visible because they aren't in the company. My only work around right now is to log in as the superadmin who has access to all companies and manually move users over. This makes new user a clunky process.

@dtjn
Copy link

dtjn commented May 15, 2023

This feature is very much needed, this was already formulated as a feature request a few times in the last couple years but was never implemented

(e.g. #4765
#2853).

So its probably not an easy task to accomplish.

@dtjn
Copy link

dtjn commented Jul 13, 2023

There are some that are still open, at least regarding company, so guess this request is redundant

#10698
#10161
#12176

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants