svn commit: samba r8740 - in branches/SAMBA_4_0: source/dsdb/samdb/ldb_modules source/lib/ldb/modules source/setup testprogs/ejs

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 09:40 +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 01:17 +0000, abartlet at samba.org wrote:
> > Author: abartlet
> > Date: 2005-07-25 01:17:09 +0000 (Mon, 25 Jul 2005)
> > New Revision: 8740
> > 
> > WebSVN: http://websvn.samba.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&root=samba&rev=8740
> > 
> > Log:
> > Extend the rdn_name module to handle adding the rdn as an attribute.  ie:
> > 
> > dn: cn=foo,ou=bar
> > objectClass: person
> > 
> > implies
> > 
> > dn: cn=foo,ou=bar
> > objectClass: person
> > cn: foo
> > (as well as a pile more default attributes)
> 
> I do not think this is correct Andrew unless that is exactl what w2k
> does. Ldap requires you (the client) to provide a cn attribute that
> matches the rdn, and the schema module will check it is true or reject
> the commit. I do not think autogenerating beyond stricter MS
> compatibility is good. Of course f this is made by AD then I'm fine as
> we need it for compatibility (but I think it is done only on a tiny
> subset of object (defined by an object class) if any.

Didn't you add this in the first place?  In any case, I'm happy to
implement broader tests as you feel may be required.

> > We also correct the case in the attirbute to match that in the DN
> > (win2k3 behaviour) and I have a testsuite (in ejs) to prove it.
> 
> Is this really required ?

The testsuite shows that the case comes from RDN.

> > This module also found a bug in our provision.ldif, so and reduces
> > code complexity in the samdb module.
> 
> coherency checking should be handled by he schema module, no the rdn
> module. It is ok to do it there for testing, but we will need to remove
> it from the RDN so we should probably put that code inside an ifdef
> block of some sort imho (something like: #ifdef COHERENCY_CHECK )

There is no sensible way to implement this module without the coherency
check, and as the check is valid (I need to extend the ejs tests to show
that) I see no problem with that.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Samba Developer, SuSE Labs, Novell Inc.        http://suse.de
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College  http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20050725/abd3c8a2/attachment.bin