[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: (c.harding 38467) bug in blits
The tests listed below all attempt to perform a search at a
non-existent entry. It is correct to expect a noSuchObject
error to be returned.
Admittedly, the Procedure clause in each of the test specifications
is a little misleading and could be replaced with:
Submit a {subtree | single-level | base-level} search request
where the base object does not exist.
Chris Harding wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> It seems a bit surprising that this hasn't come up before. Should we change
> BLITS as suggested?
>
> >From: Christopher Oliva <Chris.Oliva@entrust.com>
> >To: "'capple@att.com'" <capple@att.com>,
> > "'c.harding@opengroup.org'"
> > <c.harding@opengroup.org>,
> > "'ludovic.poitou@france.sun.com'"
> > <ludovic.poitou@france.sun.com>
> >Subject: (c.harding 38467) bug in blits
> >Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:26:36 -0500
> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
> >Comments: (c.harding 38467)
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have a bug report for the following tests in the BLITS suite:
> >
> >3.3.2.9.2
> >3.3.2.9.3
> >3.3.2.9.4
> >
> >They are testing the ldap server response to a search where no entries match
> >the search filter. They require the "noSuchObject" error to be returned. In
> >reality, this is not correct. I can tell you that from working with many
> >(commercial release) directory products that none of them return this error.
> >The correct response from the server is a "success" code with no matching
> >search result entries i.e. there will be no matches and the search completes
> >successfully.
> >
> >The reason is in X.500. Clause 10.2.3 of X.511 (1997) says this:
> >
> >The search request succeeds if the baseObject is located, regardless of
> >whether there are any subordinates to return.
> >
> >Furthermore, noSuchObject is defined as follows in clause 12 of X.511:
> >
> >noSuchObject - The name supplied does not match the name of any object
> >
> >Applied to the search operation, this means the base object parameter of the
> >search (if it cannot be located) will result in this error.
> >
> >This is substantiated by the description of how an LDAPResult is constructed
> >in RFC 2251 4.1.10.
> >
> >As a result of this, I think the BLITS test should be changed. I think some
> >directory implementations may code the incorrect behaviour into their
> >products unless this is changed.
> >
> >Please let me know what you think.
> >
> >Chris.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
> +++++
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Harding
> T H E Directory Program Manager
> O P E N Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading RG1 1AX, UK
> G R O U P Mailto:c.harding@opengroup.org Ph: +44 118 950 8311 x2262
> WWW: http://www.opengroup.org Fx: +44 118 950 0110
>
> OSF/1, Motif, UNIX and the "X" device are registered trademarks in
> the US and other countries, and IT DialTone and The Open Group are
> trademarks of The Open Group.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------