LDB: schema syntax comparison

[Stefan (metze) Metzmacher]

Hi,

> I simply tried to revert this specific patch and then the following
> exception is raised during provisioning:
>> ERROR(ldb): uncaught exception - attribute 'dn': value #0 on
>> '@ATTRIBUTES' provided more than once
> And I think this is index-entry related?

This is actually a bug in the patches, we need to analyze this more
detailed,
for now I revoke my reviewed-by.

metze

> Simo schrieb:
>> On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 16:03 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>>> Hi Simo & others,
>>>
>>> I do not remember the exact problem, but I think it would be very
>>> tedious to enforce 100%-correct schema validation for index entries
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> And then: does comparison strictly require preliminar validation? My
>>> opinion in this case is no, since if something is comparable let us just
>>> do the comparison. But okay, this is a little philosophical.
>> If index DNs are validated and canonicalized before being written, then
>> I guess it really doesn't make much sense re-validating on read given
>> the performance penalties. Do we have the guarantee they are properly
>> vetted before being written ?
>> I ask because the comment in the bug seem to implay we have 'bad'
>> provision creating some bad index, and that is certainly not acceptable
>> IMO.
>>
>> Simo.
>>
>>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20130908/51bdd435/attachment.pgp>