[PATCHES] samba-tool: implement user show command to display a user AD object

[Ralph Böhme]

Hi folks,

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:49:45PM +0000, Rowland Penny via samba-technical wrote:
> > On 12/08/2017 02:22 PM, Rowland Penny via samba-technical wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 13:49:50 +0100
> > > Bjoern Baumbach <bb at sernet.de> wrote:
> > >> On 12/08/2017 01:02 PM, Rowland Penny wrote:
> > >>> I don't really understand the reason behind this patch, what does
> > >>> it give you that an ldbsearch doesn't, where would you use it ?
> > >>
> > >> I would like to introduce a user move command, later, to move a
> > >> user into an OU or a different container. With the show command
> > >> you can easily display the users DN and further attributes.
> > >
> > > Why not just create the move command, now this would be useful, i.e.
> > > samba-tool user move username OU-to-move-to
> > >
> > > Find the user, exit if not found
> > > Check the user isn't already in the OU
> > > then use samba.Ldb.rename
> > 
> > I already did it in a similar way. I'll provide the patches as soon
> > I've added a proper test.
> > But I just mentioned it as an example, that you might want to check
> > the current OU of the user before you move the user.
> 
> You can do this with samba-tool user edit, but it is not really down to
> just me, perhaps someone else will give their opinion.

I want the show command.

> > >> I assume that there are users which do not make use of the
> > >> ldb-tools but of the samba-tool. The usage is more easy and looks
> > >> more generic for them - some of the users are afraid of using the
> > >> ldb commands directly.
> 
> I can understand this, but still cannot see what your patch gives Samba
> what it doesn't already have ;-)

A consistent samba-tool interface.

> > >>> I would also think that the typos should be in separate patches.
> > >>
> > >> It is already a separate patch. Or would you split the patch for
> > >> some reason?
> > >
> > > Yes, it is just one patch, but I think it should be separate
> > > patches, your main patch does not rely on the typo patches and
> > > visa-versa
> > 
> > Sorry, but I do not understand what you mean. The typos are all in the
> > same code, why should I separate them? Or do you not like that I send
> > them all together in one file?
> 
> Okay, the typos have nothing to do with your your proposed main patch,
> they are 'repairing' a small problem, so should be in their own patch
> and as such should be pushed, but your main patch will work without
> them, so it should be in its own patch, which we could then discuss the
> merits of ;-)

they are in their own patch. It's one patch*set*, but that's perfectly fine
adding related typo fix patches into such a patchset.

-slow

-- 
Ralph Boehme, Samba Team       https://samba.org/
Samba Developer, SerNet GmbH   https://sernet.de/en/samba/