Skip to content

User Classification module documentation #9921

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
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Karuna-Mendix
Copy link
Collaborator

@Karuna-Mendix Karuna-Mendix commented Jul 30, 2025

@@ -97,3 +97,7 @@ Therefore, the approach we take is to create a new non-persistable entity, `User
{{< figure src="/attachments/deployment/general/populate-user-type/user-type-report.png" class="no-border" >}}

7. The report can be exported into an Excel file.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this page needs a little bit more attention/love/rework.

What is important for customers to get clarity on the following options:

  • userrole based (this is supported by User Classification)
  • IdP-based user classification (this is described in current section 3.)
  • custom (this is supported by user Classification module, or can be done as per old situation and which is described in section 4.

I think the ToC of this page should follow these options. That gives more an outside-in view - what is the logic I want to apply.
I'll send you a link to slide that explains how customers can choose from these options - it includes a decision tree.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe for clarity this page should also say something about the deprecated method:

"Previously another method was supported: based on email address persisted in a custom user entity. This method involved the USAGE_METRICS_EMAIL_FIELDS as decribed here/link. This method is deprecated." (DRAFT)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this rework needs another separate PR. It should not hold the release of the User Classification module. I will create a separate PR for it.


## Introduction

The [User Classification]() module enables efficient categorization of users based on pre-defined roles or custom classification logic. This document guides you in implementing the classification logic and configuring the required elements within your Mendix application. Using this module, organizations can ensure reliable user classification and maintain accurate metering within their Mendix environment.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would prefer to say 'customer defined' - the word 'pre-defined' suggests Mendix/StudioPro/something is doing that before the developer does anything. I think we're not. The customer has to define their roles. Maybe good to add a link to page that describes how to define userroles.

Also can we use the word userroles? That's how it's called elsewhere in documentation as well.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the introduction plesae add a reference to the user classofication page - that gives the top-down overview of options available to the customer - i.e. more context.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

https://docs.mendix.com/refguide/user-roles/

you may want to use this link -

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the introduction plesae add a reference to the user classofication page - that gives the top-down overview of options available to the customer - i.e. more context.

Hi @JaapF, do you mean adding a reference of Configuring Classification Logic section of the same document, here?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Implemented the feedback through this commit: 6a965db


## Introduction

The [User Classification]() module enables efficient categorization of users based on customer-defined [user roles](/refguide/user-roles/) or custom classification logic. This document guides you in implementing the classification logic and configuring the required elements within your Mendix application. For details on the available classification logic options, see the [Configuring Classification Logic](#configure-classification-logic) section below. Using this module, organizations can ensure reliable user classification and maintain accurate metering within their Mendix environment.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have chosen to call the module User Classification, so I suggest to be consistent and not use 'catgeorization'

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe start with:

The User Classification module enables your Mendix application to accurately classify end-users —an essential capability for compliance with the Mendix Pricing Plan. The module provides logic to set the user type as external or internal based on the user roles in your app. Custom logic can be used instead. Mendix’ user metering processes will count users as internal if the user type is not explicitly set as ‘external’, which can affect licensing calculations.

This document guides you ...

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants