Review request

[Kamen Mazdrashki]

Matthias,

Sorry for asking but, as long as I read the code,
you are replacing a code that returns some string, with code
that returns empty string (but now with a FIXME comment).
Both implementation are incorrect as long as I understood.
So my question is -> what is the benefit from this change?

An if my understanding is correct, then I should suggest you
to implement a test that reveals what the real behavior should be.
This test will fail and thus remind us we have something to do.
What I see now is masking the problem with another problem
with a FIXME comment :)

-- 
CU,
Kamen


On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 16:06, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer <mdw at samba.org>wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> and is MS-SAMR 2.2.4.1 to vague for you?
>
>> ReplicaSourceNodeName: A counted Unicode string of type RPC_UNICODE_STRING
>> that
>> represents a replication partner.
>>
>
> Greets,
> Matthias
>
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 16:34 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Kamen&  other s4 developers,
>>>
>>> I would first like to call to mind my last two "dsdb_work" patches
>>> ("ReplicaSourceNodeName"). Andrew told me that he's fine if you Kamen
>>> acknowledge them.
>>>
>>>
>> That's not what I meant, and in any case I've looked over the
>> documentation since I last commented on the patch.  I think that before
>> we change anything here you should ask Microsoft to explain what this
>> field is and means - the behaviour isn't described in MS-SAMR, only a
>> name is given.
>>
>> Andrew Bartlett
>>
>>
>>
>
>