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

Re: Debugging a module

Ryan Steele wrote:
Hey Andreas,

Andreas Hasenack wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 17:42, Ryan Steele<ryans@aweber.com>  wrote:
query returns nothing:

ldapsearch -x -w SECRET -D "cn=admin,dc=example,dc=com" -b "cn=testgroup,ou=Groups,dc=example,dc=com" -LLL '(uid=user1)'

This filter doesn't look right. Try

ldapsearch -x -w SECRET -D "cn=admin,dc=example,dc=com" -b "cn=testgroup ou=Groups,dc=example,dc=com" -LLL
dn: cn=testgroup,ou=Groups,dc=example,dc=com
ou: Groups
cn: testgroup
objectClass: groupOfURLs
memberURL: ldap:///ou=Users,dc=example,dc=com?uid?sub?(&(employeeType=Developer
member: uid=user1,ou=Users,dc=example,dc=com
member: uid=user2,ou=Users,dc=example,dc=com
member: uid=user3,ou=Users,dc=example,dc=com

Thanks for the advice - I think you're right about filtering on the
attribute. However, doing so still returns
the entire list, not the individual member I'm filtering for.

That is the way LDAP search filters work, as Quanah explained in his followup. And yes, this comment deserves an RTFM response.

Note that there is a ValuesReturnFilter control (RFC3876) which can be used to only return specific values in a result.

I'm not quite sure how to explain this behavior, given the implications
made  in the following two posts which indicate
that I should be able to use dynamically generated attributes as filter

The posts you reference make no such implication.


States quite clearly "the dynamic members are not present in the entry during search, when the filter is evaluated. You can only filter for static data."

Or again, for clarity: You cannot use dynamically generated attributes as filter expressions.

The suggestion to use the autogroup overlay is precisely because autogroup does not use dynamically generated attributes, and therefore doesn't run into this constraint.


Also, in the earlier ITS filed for the autogroup contrib overlay, it
states  that for searches and compares, it should
behave like a static group, bolstering that supposition:


How does "behaves like a static group" in any way support the notion that *dynamic* content is supported?

So, should I be searching for a bug (which was the premise for the OP), or
has the behavior of autogroup changed since  its inception?
As always, many thanks for any and all advice!

You should be re-checking the enormous logical leaps you have made based on the material you have read. Another reason questions go un-answered is because the person asking them has already demonstrated such poor reading comprehension that the time spent writing an answer would be wasted; the answer will obviously be misunderstood.

"static" and "dynamic" are clearly antonyms in this context but you have conflated the two together and are asking why you aren't seeing the behavior you expect. Since we can only communicate in English on this list, if you don't even understand this basic semantic in English then you're beyond our ability to help.

  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/