Hi,

you are absolutely right and I can understand that behaviour with syntax.
The thing is: I want to recover the original syntax, the 02common one, how
can I do that? I can't use replace obviously, add will not recover the
original, Is there some way to procced?

   In the mail issue:

The entry has the attribute -> mail:mBarbA.MaiL@xxxx
The access log

[30/Apr/2012:08:41:02 +0200] conn=6019 op=1 SRCH base="xxxx" scope=2
filter="(&(objectClass=posixAccount)(mail=mbarba.mail@xxxx))" attrs=ALL
[30/Apr/2012:08:41:02 +0200] conn=6019 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=0
etime=0


[30/Apr/2012:08:51:52 +0200] conn=6040 op=1 SRCH base="xxxx" scope=2
filter="(&(objectClass=posixAccount)(mail=mBarbA.MaiL@xxxx))" attrs=ALL
[30/Apr/2012:08:51:52 +0200] conn=6040 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=1
etime=0

I can't upgrade the version of DS by the moment, I have the upgrade in mind
but not possible yet. Any idea about how to change this to
case-insensitive???

Regards,
Moses


2012/4/27 Noriko Hosoi <[email protected]>

>  Hi Moisés,
>
> Moisés Barba Pérez wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have replaced the OID and now there is no syntax error. The ticket is
> https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/349.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> I have perform this ldif:
>
> dn: cn=schema
> changetype: modify
> add: attributeTypes
> attributeTypes: ( 2.16.840.1.113730.3.1.3023 NAME 'nsViewFilter' DESC
> 'Netscape defined attribute type' SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
> X-ORIGIN 'Netscape Directory Server' )
> -
>
> How can I recover the initial configuration of the attributeType???? I
> have in my schema files 2 lines for nsViewFilter after apply the indicated
> ldif, one with the old OID and in other file one with the new OID. I would
> like to know how to delete the newer in case of problems with this OID
> change.
>
> It's normal.  Please run the next command line and check nsViewFilter.
> You should see just one that you added above.
> ldapsearch [...] -b "cn=schema" attributeTypes | grep nsViewFilter
>
> AttributeTypes nsViewFilter is originally defined in 02common.ldif which
> is overridden by your new definition which is stored in the user defined
> schema file 99user.ldif.
>
>
> ----
>
> In the another hand: in my DS the attribute mail is case-sensitive. If I
> perform the same search as you I get nothing for one of my mail attributes
> whit upper characters. Maybe 389DS in 1.2.5 is case-sensitive???
>
> It cannot be...  Could you give us a snippet of your access log
> (/var/log/dirsrv/slapd-ID/access), which includes the SRCH options and the
> result?
>
> [27/Apr/2012:10:05:14 -0700] conn=7 op=1 SRCH base="dc=example,dc=com"
> scope=2 
> filter="([email protected])"<%[email protected]%29>attrs="mail"
> [27/Apr/2012:10:05:14 -0700] conn=7 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 
> *nentries=1*etime=0
>
> [27/Apr/2012:10:05:36 -0700] conn=8 op=1 SRCH base="dc=example,dc=com"
> scope=2 
> filter="([email protected])"<%[email protected]%29>attrs="mail"
> [27/Apr/2012:10:05:36 -0700] conn=8 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 
> *nentries=1*etime=0
>
> Also, if you think the version 1.2.5 is not working well, could you
> upgrade 389-ds-base to the latest and try the same operation?
>  389 Directory Server 1.2.10.4 is now available (March 29, 2012)
>
> 389 Directory Server 1.2.10.4 is now available from the Stable
> repositories.
>
>    - See the Release 
> Notes<http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Notes>for more 
> information
>
>
> Thanks,
> --noriko
>
>
>  How can I solve this???
>
> Regards,
> Moses.
>
>
> El 26 de abril de 2012 20:41, Noriko Hosoi <[email protected]> escribió:
>
>>  Moisés Barba Pérez wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have several questions about syntax and attributes, hope you can help
>> me.
>>
>> - Why the attribute mail in DS is case sensitive?? Is there any problem
>> changing it to non case sensitive? If there is no problem, how can I modify
>> it?
>>
>>  The syntax of mail is IA5 String.
>>
>> If you have
>>
>> mail: [email protected]
>>
>> then this command line returns the expected result.  That is, not case
>> sensitive.
>>
>> ldapsearch [...] -b 'dc=example,dc=com' 
>> "([email protected])"<%[email protected]%29>mail
>> mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
>> - I have a problem whit the syntax of the nsViewFilter attribute, the
>> value of the attribute is: (ou=*ou=D. PERIÓDICO,o=xxxxx,dc=xxxx,dc=xxxx). I
>> guess the problem is the character "Ó" but if it is possible to create the
>> ou with special characters, should be possible create a nsViewFilter with
>> special characters to??? (389DS 1.2.5)
>>
>>  Currently, the syntax of nsViewFilter is IA5 String, which does not
>> allow non-ascii characters.
>> attributeTypes: ( 2.16.840.1.113730.3.1.3023 NAME 'nsViewFilter' DESC
>> 'Netscape defined attribute type' SYNTAX 
>> *1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26*X-ORIGIN 'Netscape Directory Server' )
>>
>> Indeed, it'd be a needless restriction for nsViewFilter.  Please open a
>> ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/389/newticket.
>>
>> In the meantime, could you replace *1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26* with
>> 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15, and try?
>>
>>
>>
>> - I have read about the attribute nsslapd-allidsthreshold and its use in
>> older versions. I have 389DS 1.2.5, have I to use it or it is deprecated???
>> I have search this parameters in my ldap servers and someones have it, and
>> others don't, maybe this behaviour is because of actualizations of the DS
>> but I would like to know if in 1.2.5 is needed or if i can delete it.
>>
>>  nsslapd-allidsthreshold is replaced with nsslapd-idlistscanlimit in
>> 389-ds-base.  Not like nsslapd-allidsthreshold, nsslapd-idlistscanlimit is
>> used just by the search operation and you can dynamically change the
>> value.  If the IDlist length is larger than the nsslapd-idlistscanlimit
>> value, DS gives up generating the IDlist and uses ALLID, which scans all
>> the entries in the primary database.
>>
>>
>> Thank you in advance.
>>
>> Moses.
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 389 users mailing 
>> [email protected]https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 389 users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 389 users mailing 
> [email protected]https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>
>
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>
--
389 users mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

Reply via email to