[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd filterentry.c schema_init.c
Pierangelo Masarati writes:
>> Update uniqueMemberMatch to be consistent with latest
>> Add uniqueMemberMatch approximate support
>> Add uniqueMemberMatch indexing support
> As a consequence of this change, test026 is failing when the server is
> searched with "(uniqueMember=dc=example,dc=com)", i.e. the asserted
> value is missing the bitString portion. Since this option appears to be
> absent from draft-ietf-ldapbis-syntaxes, i.e. there's no mention of the
> possibility of having the asserted value without the bitString portion,
Yes there is. Section 4.2.31 (uniqueMemberMatch) says:
The rule evaluates to TRUE if and only if (...) and either, the
<BitString> component is absent from both the attribute value and
assertion value, or (...)
If you find that somewhat complex sentence ambiguous or too hard to
parse, maybe you should suggest a better wording to
> if my interpretation is correct the test is malformed and should be
> removed, since it seems to imply that an absent bitString is equivalent
> to a bitstring of "#'0'B".
I don't see how you get that from the draft. Also note that a bit
string is just that - a bit string, not a representation of an integer.
So if anything #''B would be a more natural "default".