I got failure because the entries were in a different order:
[quanah@freelancer testrun]$ diff -u ldapsearch.flt ldif.flt --- ldapsearch.flt 2009-01-20 13:50:56.000000000 -0800 +++ ldif.flt 2009-01-20 13:50:56.000000000 -0800 @@ -14,15 +14,6 @@ telephoneNumber: +1 313 555 1817 associatedDomain: example.com
-dn: cn=Manager,dc=example,dc=com -objectClass: person -cn: Manager -cn: Directory Manager -cn: Dir Man -sn: Manager -description: Manager of the directory -userPassword:: c2VjcmV0 - dn: ou=People,dc=example,dc=com objectClass: organizationalUnit objectClass: extensibleObject @@ -105,6 +96,15 @@ facsimileTelephoneNumber: +1 313 555 2756 telephoneNumber: +1 313 555 8232
+dn: cn=Manager,dc=example,dc=com +objectClass: person +cn: Manager +cn: Directory Manager +cn: Dir Man +sn: Manager +description: Manager of the directory +userPassword:: c2VjcmV0 + dn: cn=Mark Elliot,ou=Alumni Association,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com objectClass: OpenLDAPperson cn: Mark Elliot
We may need to change the expectations for this test if ldif is the database.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
--On Tuesday, January 20, 2009 1:57 PM -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.com wrote:
We may need to change the expectations for this test if ldif is the database.
The following tests have ordering issues with back-ldif: test011 test012 test020 test028 test029 test042
test044 segfaults when back-ldif is used (ITS#5898)
I've modified test046 to skip when using back-ldif, as it doesn't support ACLs, which are required for the test to succeed correctly.
test052 wants to set olcDbCacheSize, which is only part of back-bdb/hdb. I haven't looked further into whether it is supported once that issue is put aside.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
-
Quanah Gibson-Mount