[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#6549) test043 hasSubordinates attribute inconsistencies
- To: openldap-its@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Re: (ITS#6549) test043 hasSubordinates attribute inconsistencies
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 22:40:06 GMT
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated (OpenLDAP-ITS)
> I just checked with HEAD and re24 (basically 2.4.22) on Linux (CentOS 5.2,
> for what it matters, and db-4.6.21, for what it matters), and it works
> fine if you explicitly ask for hasSubordinates, while this specific attr
> is not returned if you request '+'. The fact hasSubordinates does not
> appear means that the appropriate backend operational attrs hook was not
> called, or its value was ignored.
Since hasSubordinates is a generated attribute, it would be filtered out on
the consumer anyway. There's no reason to ever include it in replication traffic.
> After a quick check, I figured out that bdb_hasSubordinates is passed a
> copy of the original entry, thus without bdb information, and
> bdb_hasSubordinates bails out. Apparently, syncprov copies the entry
> instead of putting operational attrs in rs_operational_attrs in SlapReply.
>> Full_Name: Matt Hardin
>> Version: 2.4.22
>> OS: Red Hat AS 4
>> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
>> Submission from: (NULL) (18.104.22.168)
>> In test043 the test database defines a root entry of dc=example,dc=com.
>> For this
>> entry, the results of the ldapsearch do not include the hasSubordinates
>> attribute at all, in spite of the fact that the entry does have
>> Test043 passes, due to the fact that this attribute is missing from the
>> entry in both the provider and the consumer.
>> Other entries with subordinates do include this attribute and its value is
>> correct in all the cases I examined.
>> Here is the snippet from tests/testrun/server1.flt:
>> dn: dc=example,dc=com
>> dc: example
>> objectClass: organization
>> objectClass: domainRelatedObject
>> objectClass: dcObject
>> l: Anytown, Michigan
>> st: Michigan
>> o: Example, Inc.
>> o: EX
>> o: Ex.
>> description: The Example, Inc. at Anytown
>> postalAddress: Example, Inc. $ 535 W. William St. $ Anytown, MI 48109 $ US
>> telephoneNumber: +1 313 555 1817
>> associatedDomain: example.com
>> structuralObjectClass: organization
>> entryUUID: e2d47ecc-f24a-102e-90fb-9f641f00f9d2
>> creatorsName: cn=Manager,dc=example,dc=com
>> createTimestamp: 20100512194705Z
>> entryCSN: 20100512194705.076849Z#000000#000#000000
>> modifiersName: cn=Manager,dc=example,dc=com
>> modifyTimestamp: 20100512194705Z
>> contextCSN: 20100512194748.621773Z#000000#000#000000
>> entryDN: dc=example,dc=com
>> subschemaSubentry: cn=Subschema
>> The version of BDB in use here is 4.8.30, although I note this happens
>> earlier releases of BDB as well.
>> Also of interest is the fact that this test fails on some platforms (e.g.
>> Windows), because the provider slapd correctly reports
>> while the consumer omits the attribute entirely, in spite of the fact that
>> subordinate entries do exist on the consumer.
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/