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

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 18:01 +0100, Felix Botner wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 5. März 2014, 10:16:37 schrieb Andrew Bartlett:
> > 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
> > instead.
> 
> Yes, i see that, how should i ask the user
> 
> (a)
> 
> Found conflict object and corresponding non-conflict object!
> Delete conflict object "conflict dn"? [Y,n] -> n
> Delete the non-conflict object "non-conflict dn"? [Y,n] -> y
> Rename the conflict object to "non-conflict dn"? [Y,n] -> y
> 
> if --fix is set, the default would be to delete all conflict objects
> 
> (b)
> 
> Found conflict object and corresponding non-conflict object! 
> Which object should be deleted?
>   [1] the conflict object (dn)
>   [2] the non-conflict object (dn)
>   [3] none
> [1, 2, 3] -> 2
> Should the conflict object be renamed to 'non-conflict dn'? [Y,n] -> y
> 
> (b) is maybe a bit more user friendly, because we present them all the options 
> (delete conflict or delete non-conflict) in one step not just "delete 
> conflict" as in (a)

I think b) is much better.  I think the second step should be combined
with the choice - leaving the conflict object but removing the original
DN makes little sense to me.  

I'm happy for --fix --yes to delete the conflict DN in the
--check-for-conflicts mode. 

> > 
> > It also shouldn't be presented as an ERROR - it isn't an error, but can
> > be cleaned up.  Perhaps call it 'WARNING:' instead?
> 
> OK
> 
> > 
> > Also, we shouldn't specify the DBCHECK control - the deletion needs to
> > be a normal delete, and go though the normal processes.
> >
> 
> Yes
>  
> > 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).

This is the critical part - this will only happen rarely I hope, and we
need tests to ensure it all works. 

Andrew Bartlett

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