Skip to content

Admin rights mandatory on DSM side #37051

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

Open
osmeest opened this issue Jan 22, 2025 · 5 comments
Open

Admin rights mandatory on DSM side #37051

osmeest opened this issue Jan 22, 2025 · 5 comments

Comments

@osmeest
Copy link

osmeest commented Jan 22, 2025

Feedback

I tried to integrate my Synology DS218play (running DSM 7.2) in HomeAssistant with a HA specific user created on the NAS.
It failed consistently until I put the user in the administrators group.
I believe this should be mentioned explicitly in the documentation for the integration. (I read somewhere this was mandatory starting with DSM 7.1).
I also gave it permissions to use DSM but I'm not sure if that's required.

URL

https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/synology_dsm/

Version

2025.1.2

Additional information

No response

@home-assistant
Copy link

Hey there @hacf-fr, @Quentame, @mib1185, mind taking a look at this feedback as it has been labeled with an integration (synology_dsm) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of synology_dsm can trigger bot actions by commenting:

  • @home-assistant close Closes the feedback.
  • @home-assistant rename Awesome new title Renames the feedback.
  • @home-assistant reopen Reopen the feedback.
  • @home-assistant unassign synology_dsm Removes the current integration label and assignees on the feedback, add the integration domain after the command.
  • @home-assistant add-label needs-more-information Add a label (needs-more-information) to the feedback.
  • @home-assistant remove-label needs-more-information Remove a label (needs-more-information) on the feedback.

@mib1185
Copy link
Contributor

mib1185 commented Jan 22, 2025

it is menationed in the Separate User Configuration section?

@osmeest
Copy link
Author

osmeest commented Jan 22, 2025

Now that you say it, it is indeed written "You must grant the user admin rights in order to access utilization information".
I interpreted this as giving access to DSM app. Seeing the list of groups proposed by DSM (users, http, administrators), I was a bit reluctant to put it as member of the administrators group. Until I realised this was the only way. I also tried putting the user in the http group but that doesn't work either.

All in all, I believe it would probably be more explicit if it was written as "the user must be in the administrators group in DSM".

My 2c,

@mib1185
Copy link
Contributor

mib1185 commented Jan 25, 2025

You must grant the user admin rights

This is a quiet common phrase and it describes that the user has to have admin rights - it is up to the user, how they want to achieve this - maybe through a direct membership of the administrators group or indirect via other group memberships

@lucymhdavies
Copy link

I had this issue too, and the text in the Separate User Configuration section was unclear.

You must grant the user admin rights in order to access utilization information since it’s stored in the core module.

Implies that if you don't want to access utilization information, then admin rights are optional. Or that only certain permissions are required, for certain things.

Side note... if that were true, it would also be very useful to specify which specific admin permissions the user requires, as my initial assumption was that it would not be literally everything. Alas, through much trial and error... even granting access to all applications, and giving the user all permissions through Delegated Administration... it's clear that yes, indeed, it's FULL admin rights, which (at least in my version of DSM) can only be given by adding the user to the "administrators" group.

(And then I found this issue)

So the wording

You must grant the user admin rights in order to access utilization information since it’s stored in the core module.
is not sufficient.

I don't know right now how we should reword it though.

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