Validation on upgradeprovision patches needed

Matthieu Patou mat at
Mon Jul 12 16:58:00 MDT 2010

  On 13/07/2010 02:41, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 01:16 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
>> Hello Andrews,
>> As metze and Jelmer are on vacation,
>> can one of you had final look on
>> and push it if it's ok.
>> I normally addressed the remarks of Matthias and those made by metze on IRC.
> These look good, but I hope you won't mind if make some comments:
> In s4 dsdb: Use the changereplmetadata control
> You do a check for
> +               objectclass_el = ldb_msg_find_element(res->msgs[0], "objectClass");
> +               if (is_urgent&&  replmd_check_urgent_objectclass(objectclass_el,
> +                                                               situation)) {
> +                       *is_urgent = true;
> +               }
> In both arms of the if (rmd_is_provided) statement.
> But in any case, if we are offline doing an upgradeprovision, then it
> isn't urgent to replicate anything.
Well even though this control is used only by upgradeprovision right now 
it's better to have this just in case ?
This came form the fact that I kept in this branch of the test almost 
the same logic.
> In s4 upgradeprovision: do not copy RID Set it's automaticaly created by
> the RID manager
> +    try:
> +        if str(reference[0].get("cn"))  == "RID Set":
> +            skip = True
> Is this the best way to identify the RID Set?
obviously objectClass: rIDSet is much better

> Anyway, you have come a very long way on these patches, and I think that
> with these small issues addressed, they look good to go in.  The
> upgradeprovision work is really, really important, and I really
> appreciate the effort you keep putting into it.
> Thanks,
> Andrew Bartlett

Matthieu Patou
Samba Team

More information about the samba-technical mailing list