[SSSD] [PATCHES][PRELIMINARY] Support for multiple LDAP search bases

Jan Zelený jzeleny at redhat.com
Mon Sep 26 15:23:08 UTC 2011


> > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 15:40 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 15:10 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > > > Patch 0004: Add parser for multiple search bases
> > > > > > As discussed on the list, this will the ldap_*_search_base
> > > > > > options in the form of:
> > > > > > search_base[?scope?[filter][?search_base?scope?[filter]]*]
> > > > > > This is backwards-compatible (just use a search base)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why haven't you used the for cycle to parse search bases?
> > > > > Personally I'd prefer it that way, but I guess it is nothing wrong
> > > > > to do it this way either. Other than that the patch is fine.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't understand the question. Could you explain?
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I didn't notice. This was only my note without any explanation.
> > > What I thought is that on ldap_common.c:253, there is a block of code
> > > handling search bases in a cycle. I just think that we should either
> > > use the cycle to do both setting and parsing or neither. But as I
> > > wrote before, this is just cosmetic issue.
> > 
> > I didn't do it in the loop because it would have required an annoying
> > switch statement to handle which of the opts->*_search_bases values to
> > assign to. I figured it read better just having them in order
> > afterwards.
> > 
> > I'm not a huge fan of that loop to begin with, but I'm not sure there's
> > any value to dismantling it either.
> 
> Ok, as I stated before, I have no problem with this, just a cosmetic thing.
> 
> I'm recompiling SSSD to run some tests, but consider all patches to be
> ACKed.
> 
> 
> Jan

So NACK after all. Following test failed:

I tried following membership structure. I have 3 groups: topgroup, middlegroup 
and bottomgroup and 2 users:  user1 and user2

The relationship is following:
topgroup -> middlegroup, user1
middlegroup -> user2, bottomgroup
bottomgroup -> user1


getent group topgroup gives me result with no members, the same test on master 
returns the expected result.

Jan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/attachments/20110926/d332af67/attachment.sig>


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list