[SAMBA4] Help merge my ldb-fixes branch

[Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer]

Hi Andrew,

I pushed now those patches which in my eyes don't need tests. Hope you 
are satisfied with my decision. Otherwise we can always think about more 
tests if you want to have them :) .

Matthias

Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer schrieb:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> your patches seem to work good except the most recent one. You create 
> there an extended request which isn't handled in the "partition" 
> module so you get always an error "UNSUPPORTED CONTROL" from ldb_tdb.c.
>
> I do some tests at the moment with your patches and will try to start 
> merging them.
>
> Matthias
>
> Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer schrieb:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
>>> Matthias,
>>>
>>> While at the plugfest at Microsoft a week ago now, I did a lot of work
>>> to make our LDAP server better.
>>> However, while it now passes more of Microsoft's testsuites, I don't
>>> have Samba tests for any of the changes.  As such, we will break this
>>> work in future, and I'll only find out next time I get my hands on the
>>> MS tests.
>>>
>>> I wondered if you or someone on the list might like to cherry-pick some
>>> of the changes and write tests in ldap.py for them so they can be 
>>> pushed
>>> to master?  (Ignore the changes under lib/ldb)
>>>
>>> They are in git://git.samba.org/abartlet/samba.git ldb-fixes
>>>   
>> I noticed the branch but I didn't want to pick anything before it 
>> wasn't ready (as you said it seems now to be). Btw, what's with your 
>> rewritten indexes (ldb-index branch)?
>>> I know you have changes for samldb and ldap.py in store.  Perhaps you
>>> might want to take a close look at my changes and see how to best
>>> integrate new tests and these new requirements into that work? BTW, 
>>> in retrospect I wish I had looked closer at your changes before the
>>> week at MS, as many of the modify tests failed (as you know, many 
>>> things
>>> are illegal to modify), and it seems you now have a way to handle that.
>>> Nice work!
>>>   
>> Yeah, the branch is a nice apporoach. I began a rework on the top of 
>> the MS-ADTS guide which specifies the exact triggers and what they do 
>> - since we at the moment perform changes a bit "arbitrary". Then I 
>> introduced prework and postwork attribute triggers which are applied 
>> on addition and modification of specified attributes. They will be 
>> useful e.g. for our "dNSDomainname" and "servicePrincipalName" 
>> checks. (NB I speak always about our SAM ldb module). But the 
>> patchset doesn't work until now and needs much more work.
>> At the moment I'm improving the "password_hash" module so the other 
>> one will likely take much longer.
>>
>> Matthias
>>> Andrew Bartlett
>>>   
>>
>>
>
>