[Bug 8528] Incorrect results on replace op for olcAccess
by openldap-its@openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8528
--- Comment #3 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
Not saying it's a bad idea, but the interactions with a delete mod might be a
little confusing:
changetype: modify
delete: olcAccess
olcAccess: {2}to dn.exact="cn=2" by * none
olcAccess: {1}to dn.exact="cn=1" by * none
olcAccess: {0}to dn.exact="cn=0" by * none
I think the above might fail if sorted. Worse still if you sent this modify
request (I think we implement this?):
changetype: modify
delete: olcAccess
olcAccess: {2}
olcAccess: {1}
olcAccess: {0}
You would get the wrong values deleted if we do and you need to make 100% sure
that you send this instead:
changetype: modify
delete: olcAccess
olcAccess: {2}
-
delete: olcAccess
olcAccess: {1}
-
delete: olcAccess
olcAccess: {0}
-
Similar with adds.
Would need to reread the draft, but I think the text also needs changing if we
want to make this change.
Question is whose job would it be to reorder the values? Frontend or later?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9 months, 2 weeks
[Bug 8345] inconsistencies regarding LDIF line length
by openldap-its@openldap.org
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8345
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=9001
--- Comment #4 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
That sounds fine by me.
BTW liblutil is currently a static-only library, which is why none of the
libldap code uses it. Same issue I'm hitting with using AVL code in ITS#9001
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9 months, 2 weeks