[PATCH] Fixed problem with schemaUpdateNow request.

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 12:09 +0300, Nadezhda Ivanova wrote:
> Hi Samba,
> The attached patch contains the fix for the schemaUpdateNow request not working, + test. 
> Hopefully, we should now be able to modify the Schema via LDAP. 

In reviewing your patch, it seems that you have invented a third style
for the construction of ldb modifications:

> +    def test_schemaUpdateNow(self):
> +        """Testing schemaUpdateNow works correctly"""
> +        self.delete_force(self.ldb, "CN=ATest-Attribute1," +
> self.schema_dn)
> +        ldif = "dn: CN=ATest-Attribute1," + self.schema_dn
> +        ldif += "\nobjectClass: top"
> +        ldif += "\nobjectClass: attributeSchema"
> +        ldif += "\ncn: ATest-Attribute1"
> +        ldif += "\nlDAPDisplayName: atestAttribute1"
> +        ldif += "\nobjectCategory: CN=AAttribute-Schema," +
> self.schema_dn
> +        ldif += "\nattributeID: 1.2.840.113556.1.999.998"
> +        ldif += "\nattributeSyntax: 2.5.5.10"
> +        ldif += "\ninstanceType: 4"
> +        ldif += "\nisSingleValued: TRUE"
> +        ldif += "\noMSyntax: 4"
> +        self.ldb.add_ldif(ldif)

While I'm sure it's all syndactylly valid, this is needlessly unclear
(with all the \n), and I simply fail to see why you could not use one of
the other two styles already in the examples only a few lines further up
the file.

Please see if you can correct this, and re-submit.

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- 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/20090414/7d037c33/attachment.bin