[PATCH] samba-tool dbcheck: handle name conflict objects

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Tue Mar 4 14:16:37 MST 2014

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 11:36 +0100, Felix Botner wrote:
> > This looks reasonable, but wouldn't be a better that this be put in
> > dbcheck, a bit like the reset-well-known-acls?  That would avoid
> > reimplemting the all/none checks.
> OK, here is a new version of the patch for dbcheck

Thanks.  This is a much better approach.

What we need now is to improve the tool, because conflict resolution is
a manual process, not one that we can do anything more than guide.  

The tool should present both objects to the user, and ask them which one
should survive.  You will have to find the other record by figuring out
what the name would have been.   We can have --yes simply prune the
conflict record (which will be the newer record), but the admin should
be presented with the choice, and be able to keep the conflict record

It also shouldn't be presented as an ERROR - it isn't an error, but can
be cleaned up.  Perhaps call it 'WARNING:' instead?

Also, we shouldn't specify the DBCHECK control - the deletion needs to
be a normal delete, and go though the normal processes. 

Finally, as I mentioned before we also should have a test for this,
running on and fixing real conflicts generated by
source4/torture/drs/python/replica_sync.py, and on a test database
(perhaps the same one you plan to submit for the missing objectclass). 


Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba

More information about the samba-technical mailing list