h.b.furuseth(a)usit.uio.no wrote:
Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth
Version: HEAD
OS: Linux
URL:
Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.6.233)
Submitted by: hallvard
If objectclass B is a subclass of A, and an entry contains objectclass B
but not A, slapd returns attributeOrValueExists to a request to add A.
OTOH it allows replace(objectClass: <A, B>), and after that it allows
delete(objectClass: A). This is inconsistent.
If the objectClass attribute contains B, does it "really" contain A as
well? I couldn't find such a statement in the RFCs, so my guess is
that add(objectClass: A) should be allowed. Though I haven't looked
all that hard.
I believe the actual implementation should be... implementation
dependent :), provided it is consistent. Right now, the issue you
noticed is caused by the fact that the presence of the value being added
is checked by using the objectClass attribute equality rule implemented
in objectSubClassMatch(), which (correctly) returns a match both for
exact and inherited match. However, this does not allow to discriminate
the actual presence of an objectClass from its inherited presence. We
should either:
a) use a separate matching rule when checking for value presence, or
b) always remove superior objectClasses, and transparently ignore any
attempt to add them to an entry (the operation succeeds, but nothing is
actually written).
In any case, the code as is now seems to be inconsistent, as it does not
allow a modification that should be perfectly legitimate, regardless of
how it is actually dealt with by the implementation.
I vote in favor of option (b).
p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team
SysNet s.r.l.
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
---------------------------------------
Office: +39 02 23998309
Mobile: +39 333 4963172
Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it
---------------------------------------