[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Rejected update for an attribute that wasn't being updated?

At 02:46 PM 4/16/2004, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>Running OpenLDAP-2.2.6 + a few patches:
>
>We had a case last night in doing testing on our test servers, where the master rejected an update to an entry.  What we got was:
>
>java.lang.Exception: javax.naming.directory.SchemaViolationException: [LDAP: error code 65 - attribute 'suResidenceTSO' not allowed]
>
>suResidenceTSO is an MAY attribute in the objectClass suResident.  The objectClass has one required attribute, suResidenceRequiredAttribute.
>
>objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.299.11.3.110 NAME 'suCampusResident'
>       DESC 'Stanford University On Campus Resident'
>       AUXILIARY
>       MUST ( suResidenceRequiredAttribute )
>       MAY ( suResidenceCode $ suResidenceName $ suResidenceRoom $ suResidencePhone $ suResidenceTSO )
>
>
>The ldap server shows:
>
>Apr 15 12:00:48 ldap-test0.Stanford.EDU slapd[27386]: [ID 324647 local4.debug] conn=514 op=49 MOD attr=suprimaryorganizationi
>d suvisibaffiliation3 sugwaffiliation3 description susearchid sugwaffilphone1 ou sugwaffiliation1 objectclass cn sugeneralid
>title sustanfordenddate suregisteredname suresidencephone suresidencerequiredattribute sugwaffiliation2 displayname sudisplay
>namelf suregisterednamelf suaffiliation
>Apr 15 12:00:48 ldap-test0.Stanford.EDU slapd[27386]: [ID 753995 local4.debug] Entry (suRegID=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,cn=People,dc=Stanford,dc=edu), attribute 'suResidenceTSO' not allowed
>Apr 15 12:00:48 ldap-test0.Stanford.EDU slapd[27386]: [ID 100556 local4.debug] entry failed schema check: attribute 'suReside
>nceTSO' not allowed
>Apr 15 12:00:48 ldap-test0.Stanford.EDU slapd[27386]: [ID 217296 local4.debug] conn=514 op=49 RESULT tag=103 err=65 text=attr
>ibute 'suResidenceTSO' not allowed
>
>Any idea's?

It would be helpful if you could provide sample LDIF of the
entry prior to attempting the modification as well an LDIF
representation of the modify request.

Also, can you duplicate the problem in 2.2.10 (without any
patches).

Kurt