[PATCH] s4-drs: Store uSNUrgent for Urgent Replication

[Fernando J V da Silva]

Hi again!


This small patch complements the earlier one as it uses
dsdb_load_partition_usn() in other pieces of samba code as it was
modified in the first patch (it's also available at repo.or.cz).


Best Regards,

-- 
Fernando J V da Silva
M Sc Computer Science Student
Institute of Computing, State University of Campinas
+55 15 8801-2165


2010/1/7 Fernando J V da Silva <fernandojvsilva at yahoo.com.br>:
> Hi Tridge!
>
> I modified this patch (following your recommendations in our last
> meeting), now rebased with the drs linked attrs code. It's in my
> repository and attached here.
>
> I still have to check on w2k8 if we should enable urgent replication
> when an object is created, but following MS-ADTS documentation it
> should indicate replication if this class of object is updated. I also
> have to check if we should enable urgent replication if an attribute
> that needs urgent replication is mentioned when creating some object
> (MS-ADTS also only says about updates on attributes...).
>
> Some points about it that should be commented:
> * At this point, we're not checking urgent attributes when creating
> objects (it would cause things like urgent replication when creating
> users, because of auto generated userAccountControl attribute... so
> I'm intended to change it if I confirm it is really necessary ...);
> * We are enabling urgent replication when creating an object that
> should indicate urgent replication on updating;
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> --
> Fernando J V da Silva
> M Sc Computer Science Student
> Institute of Computing, State University of Campinas
> +55 15 8801-2165
>
> 2009/12/21 Fernando J V da Silva <fernandojvsilva at yahoo.com.br>:
>> Hi Tridge!
>>
>> Thanks for the comments!
>>
>>> When you look at updating your patch based on the comments below, I
>>> think you should also have a look at my drs-linked-attribs branch, as
>>> that contains some changes that overlap with your changes. I think it
>>> would be best if you rebase your changes on the drs-linked-attribs
>>> branch (see my email to Eduardo for how to checkout that branch, in
>>> case you are not familiar with tracking multiple branches in git).
>>
>> Ok! Should I send a .patch file for this branch as well or something like this?
>>
>>> In the replmd_check_urgent(), I don't see why you are doing an
>>> ldb_search(). It looks like what you are doing is saying that a change
>>> is urgent if the object contains any urgent attributes, whereas I
>>> think the correct behaviour is that a change is urgent if any urgent
>>> attributes are changed by the operation. So for example, if you change
>>> just the 'description' field of user, then the change is not urgent,
>>> even though the user object does contain 'urgent' attributes.
>>
>> I've created two new functions which replace that one, but I'm still doing an
>> ldb_search() at replmd_check_urgent_attribute(). My goal was to use the result
>> and check if the attribute value was indeed modified by the message. If the
>> value is equal to the old one, then it doesn't set urgent replication.
>> Would it be right?
>>
>>> I also think that replmd_check_urgent() is hooking into the wrong
>>> place in the code. Right now you hook into replmd_add() and
>>> replmd_modify(), but I think you would be better off hooking into
>>> replmd_update_rpmd_element() and into the existing loop over the
>>> element array in replmd_add() (the latter could also be removed, if it
>>> was changed to call replmd_update_rpmd_element()).
>>
>> Ok! Now I'm calling replmd_check_urgent_attribute() inside
>> replmd_update_rpmd_element() and
>> replmd_check_urgent_object() only once outside it. In replmd_add() I'm
>> only checking the object
>> using replmd_check_urgent_object(). The reason is because [MS-ADTS]
>> documentation says about
>> urgent replication when attributes are updated. I imagined that if you
>> create an user (for example),
>> mentioning its userAccountControl for some reason, then it would
>> enable urgent replication if I did so.
>> (or, perhaps, would it be a correct behavior?).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fernando J V da Silva
>> M Sc Computer Science Student
>> Institute of Computing, State University of Campinas
>> +55 15 8801-2165
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-s4-drs-Uses-dsdb_load_partition_usn-with-urgent_u.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100113/30070d03/attachment.bin>