Enhance the App/Service registration process to add multiple tec users

[MaximilianHauer]

Overview

Explain the topic in 2 sentences

During the App/Service creation there should be the option to define

• how many technical users should be created for this App/Service
• what the roles per technical users should be that are assigned
  

What's the benefit?

Reduced the necessity of creating multiple services to enable the usage of multiple technical users.
this could lead in more flexibility for the app/service provider

What are the Risks/Dependencies ?

raising complexity to the registration process of an app/service

Detailed explanation

Current implementation

Currently you can only define the roles that a technical user should have during the app/service registration.
Based on the selection the backend defines if one or multiple users need to be created.
Currently the only option to create two users is if you selecte internal roles and the "managed identity wallet" role as this is the only role in place enforcing another app (SAP DIM) to create a technical user account.

Proposed improvements

It should be possible to select the specific amount of technical users that should be created for one service if the user is subscribing to this service .
Furthermore it should be possible to assign the specific roles per user.

Feature Team

Contributor

• @maximilianong
• @MaximilianHauer

Committer

• Committer 1
• Committer 2

User Stories

• sig#919 - Enable technical User Page to create multiple technical Users  portal-frontend#1305
• sig#191 - Remove account creation limitation in backend for service/app creation  portal-backend#1136

Acceptance Criteria

• During the registration of a new App/Service i want to be able to define multiple technical Users that are created during the subscription of this App/service.
• During the registration of a new App/Service i want to be able to define the explicit Roles a technical User should receive during the subscription of this App/service.
• During the subscription of the App/Service all the configured technical Users should be created based on their configuration details

Test Cases

Description

Verify that the user is able to add multiple technical users during the registration of a new App/Service.

Steps

1. Navigate to the App/Service registration page.
2. Click on the "Add Technical User" button on the page technical integration.
3. Check if the new section for the technical user is shown
4. select the respective roles the technical user should have
5. Proceed with the registration of the new App/Service.

Expected Result:

• The technical users are displayed in the App/Service registration summary.

Description:

Verify that the user is able to assign specific roles to each technical user during the registration of a new App/Service.

Steps

1. Navigate to the App/Service registration page.
2. Add one or more technical users.
3. For each technical user, select the desired roles from a predefined list.
4. Save the configuration of the technical users and their assigned roles.
5. Proceed with the registration of the new App/Service.

Expected Result:

• The assigned roles are displayed in the technical user details and the App/Service registration summary.
• The technical users can only perform actions and access features based on their assigned roles.

Description:

Verify that when a new App/Service is subscribed, all the configured technical users are automatically created based on the provided details.

Steps

1. Subscribe to the newly registered App/Service.
2. Observe the creation of the technical users.

Expected Result

• All the configured technical users are automatically created with the correct roles and permissions as defined during the registration of the App/Service.
• The technical users are notified about their account creation and can access the App/Service with the assigned roles.
• The technical users are displayed in the App/Service management interface, and their details can be viewed and managed.

Architectural Relevance

The following items are ensured (answer: yes) after this issue is implemented:

• This feature aligns with our current architectural guidelines
  • Data Sovereignty: All data sharing activities across company boundaries follow the Catena-X Regulatory Framework, in particular the Data Exchange Governance, and the Dataspace Protocol via a compliant Connector (like the tractusx-edc or similar, see Connector KIT)
    • CX-0010 Business Partner Number
    • CX-0013 Identity of Member Companies
    • CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
    • CX-0049 DID Document Schema
    • CX-0050 Framework Agreement Credential
    • CX-0149 Verified Company Identity
  • Interoperability: Digital Twins are used (compliant to the Digital Twin KIT and the Industry Core KIT)
    • CX-0001 EDC Discovery API
    • CX-0002 Digital Twins in Catena-X
    • CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
  • Data Format:
    • The data model is based on a published Semantic Model
• The impact on the overall system architecture has been assessed. The Feature does not require changes to the architecture or any existing standard? Please have a look here on the overarching architecture
• Potential risks or conflicts with existing architecture has been assessed

Justification: (Fill this out, if at least one of the checkboxes above cannot be ticked. Contact the Architecture Management Committee to get an approval for the justification)

Additional information

• I am aware that my request may not be developed if no developer can be found for it. I'll try to contribute a developer (bring your own developer)

[maximilianong]

This matches to: eclipse-tractusx/portal-iam#175

[stephanbcbauer]

Some hints from Release Management (@ther3sa) and Tractus-X Project Lead (@stephanbcbauer)

• Status currently in Inbox. ⇾ Only features with status backlog are considered in open planning
• Please add missing sections from the feature template, or fill them out
• Please add committer
• Please add assignee (overall responsible person who drives the feature)

[evegufy]

Committers:
@oyo
@ntruchsess
@Phil91
@evegufy