[PATCH] samba-tool schema attribute query_oc

[William Brown]

> On 14 May 2018, at 16:32, Alexander Bokovoy <ab at samba.org> wrote:
> 
>> On ma, 14 touko 2018, William Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 16:14 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 14:03 +1000, William Brown via samba-technical
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 15:09 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 13:02 +1000, William Brown wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So that section you mention is documentation, not code. To be
>>>>>> sure
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> what you are asking:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you want the documentation updated to match the bit
>>>>>> positions?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or are you asking that the command take the "named bit
>>>>>> location"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> then OR's the result to create the schema behaviour value? IE:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> /usr/local/samba/bin/samba-tool schema attribute modify --
>>>>>> searchflags="fATTINDEX,fSUBTREEATTINDEX,fCONFIDENTIAL"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I suspect this is your request, but I want to be sure,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Correct, something like that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andrew Bartlett
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks mate! I've done exactly this. The changes are in 0005-
>>>> python-
>>>> samba-netcmd-schema.py-add-schema-query-and-m.patch
>>>> 
>>>> You'll also note I've updated the test cases to check for invalid
>>>> flags, wrong capitialisation, the --help is updated, and two extra
>>>> flags are added to ms_schema. 
>>>> 
>>>> Once again, the 6 patches attached (sorry, I forgot the trick you
>>>> showed me to get these into a single file)
>>> 
>>> --stdout.
>>> 
>>> The other thing I requested previously is to trim the list down to
>>> (or
>>> at the very least mark) those flags we in Samba actually honour.  For
>>> example, we always do a one-level index, so that flag is never used.
>>> 
>> 
>> Which flag is this specifically? Really we need all the flags there
>> because if we get the schema from an MSADDC we'll need to know how to
>> translate it ... 
> I am actually not sure we should be adding all case variants there. Why
> not to use something like str.upper() on the input before checking if
> the flag exists in the name-to-bit dictionary? And use uppercased
> versions in the dictionary. Or the low-cased ones, doesn't matter.
> 
> I can understand adding typo-ed versions there, though.

They existed before my patch, I just re-arranged then to bit order. I only added two new bit locations.

Hope that explains the change a bit better


> 
> 
> -- 
> / Alexander Bokovoy