https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8240

--- Comment #21 from Mehmet gelisin mehmetgelisin@aol.com --- List message:

When bulk-renaming entries in web2ldap I do *not* alter the RDN of the entry but also send delold: 0 in the MODRDN operation. IMO this is most minimal invasive approach. http://www-look-4.com/

This works ok in most setups.

But in a more strict setup (release 2.4.41) with slapo-constraint and constraints on the RDN's characteristic attribute those MODRDN requests http://www.compilatori.com/ trigger a constraint and fails with 'Constraint violation' although the RDN value is not changed. I can't tell whether this was different with older OpenLDAP releases. http://www.wearelondonmade.com/ Even more strange: It works with delold: 1.

So I could easily alter web2ldap's behaviour to send delold: 1. But I'm not sure whether that's the right general http://www.jopspeech.com/ approach especially when thinking about all the other LDAP servers out there. http://joerg.li/ So the question is: Is this an overzealous misbehaviour of slapo-constraint and should it be fixed therein?

List message: http://connstr.net/ When bulk-renaming entries in web2ldap I do *not* alter the RDN of the entry but also send delold: 0 in the MODRDN operation. IMO this is most minimal invasive approach.

This works ok in most setups. http://embermanchester.uk/

But in a more strict setup (release 2.4.41) with slapo-constraint and constraints on the RDN's characteristic attribute those MODRDN requests trigger a constraint and fails with 'Constraint violation' although the RDN value is not changed. I can't tell whether this was different with older OpenLDAP releases. http://www.slipstone.co.uk/

Even more strange: It works with delold: 1.

So I could easily alter web2ldap's behaviour to send delold: 1. But I'm not sure whether that's the right general approach especially when thinking about all the other LDAP servers out there. http://www.logoarts.co.uk/

So the question is: Is this an overzealous misbehaviour of slapo-constraint and should it be fixed therein?

List message: http://www.acpirateradio.co.uk/ When bulk-renaming entries in web2ldap I do *not* alter the RDN of the entry but also send delold: 0 in the MODRDN operation. IMO this is most minimal invasive approach.

This works ok in most setups.

But in a more strict setup (release 2.4.41) with slapo-constraint and https://waytowhatsnext.com/ constraints on the RDN's characteristic attribute those MODRDN requests trigger a constraint and fails with 'Constraint violation' although the RDN value is not changed. I can't tell whether this was different with older OpenLDAP releases. https://www.webb-dev.co.uk/

Even more strange: It works with delold: 1.

So I could easily alter web2ldap's behaviour to send delold: 1. But I'm not sure whether that's the right general approach especially when thinking about all the other LDAP servers out there.

So the question is: Is this an overzealous misbehaviour of slapo-constraint and should http://www.iu-bloomington.com/ it be fixed therein?