ondra(a)mistotebe.net wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:33:32PM +0000, hyc(a)symas.com wrote:
>> Hello Ondrej,
>> I tried your patch but it breaks test064-constraint.
>
> Hi Howard,
> there is useless code that caused it to read an unitialized variable. A
> fix removing that code is at
>
ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/Ondrej-Kuznik-20141218-ITS-7781.patch
>
> Thanks for identifying and fixing the problem in the meantime.
>
Ok. But looking at this patch, the lines in question actually are
needed, since they take care of errors in the cases for CONSTRAINT_COUNT
and CONSTRAINT_SET.
Just because I'm curious:
What's the use-case for setting size and count to zero?
If one wants to forbid an attribute completely one should probably use NOT in
a DIT content rule for the STRUCTURAL object class.
(This does not mean that this shouldn't be fixed though.)
Just my 2 cents.
Ciao, Michael.