[PATCH] ldb_debug: Fix for bug 13185

[Andreas Schneider]

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 05:16:25 CET Douglas Bagnall via samba-technical 
wrote:
> On 22/02/18 16:53, Douglas Bagnall via samba-technical wrote:
> > On 22/02/18 16:06, Gary Lockyer via samba-technical wrote:
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * Check for duplicates in unique indexes
> >> 
> >>  	 */
> >>  	
> >>  	if (list->count > 0 &&
> >>  	
> >>  	    ((a != NULL
> >>  	    
> >>  	      && (a->flags & LDB_ATTR_FLAG_UNIQUE_INDEX ||
> >> 
> >> -		 (el->flags & LDB_FLAG_INTERNAL_FORCE_UNIQUE_INDEX))) ||
> >> -	     ldb_attr_cmp(el->name, LTDB_IDXDN) == 0)) {
> >> +		  (el->flags & LDB_FLAG_INTERNAL_FORCE_UNIQUE_INDEX))))) {
> > 
> > This looks a bit wrong. I don't think it actually is wrong, but it
> > just looks scary having "&" mixing with other operators without tight
> > parentheses. I had to read random web pages to be sure the precedence
> > of (a & b || c) works as intended.
> > 
> > I think something like this is logically the same but a bit clearer:
> >  	if (list->count > 0 &&
> >  	
> >             a != NULL &&
> >  	    
> >  	    ((a->flags & LDB_ATTR_FLAG_UNIQUE_INDEX) ||
> >  	    
> >              (el->flags & LDB_FLAG_INTERNAL_FORCE_UNIQUE_INDEX))) {
> 
> Well, I spoke with Andrew, and it turns out he meant this:
> 
> 	if (list->count > 0 &&
> 	    ((a != NULL && (a->flags & LDB_ATTR_FLAG_UNIQUE_INDEX)) ||
> 	     (el->flags & LDB_FLAG_INTERNAL_FORCE_UNIQUE_INDEX))) {

Add a unit test for this patch?

-- 
Andreas Schneider                   GPG-ID: CC014E3D
Samba Team                             asn at samba.org
www.samba.org