Le 19/10/15 10:30, Radovan Semancik a écrit : > On 10/19/2015 02:23 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> I think we can wait for another release, that may come quite quickly >> (I have myself some additional fixes for the LdifAnonymizer). > > OK. No problem. Just let me know when the M32 release is done so I can > commit my code.
I'll close the vote tonite, afte rmy day job ;-) > >> Regarding the missing controls/extOps, here is what I would suggest : >> we could spend some time implementing a batch of the missing AD >> elements, and cut a release as soon as it's done. > > Hmm, but there is a problem. It does not make much sense to implement > the controls "theoretically". They have to be tested with real AD > instances. We all know how AD "works", eh? Meh... So right. OTOH, there is nothing forbidden us to get the code added, with internal tests, for someone to test it against AD. > > So I would counter-propose to implement the controls gradually when > someone needs them and someone is able to test them. This is the case > for the "Deleted" control: I need it and I have a setup to test it > with real AD instance. Yes, this specific control is trivial. But > there are quite complex controls in the AD set ... I have yet checked teh syntax for all of them. What I would suggest here is to create either one JIRA for all the AD controls/extended, or one JIRA per control/extended. The second option might be a better solution, even if that mean 50 JIRA will be created (OTOH, closing them fast wikll improve our opened/closed ration in a nice way ;-) > >> For controls, it's not necessarily complex, it's just a bit time >> consuming (especially the tests). > > Well, yes, unit tests are a bit time consuming. But tests with real AD > are insanely time consuming as AD will not tell you what is the > problem. So, unless you already have a setup where you can test it > easily I see no point in implementing something that will not be tested. I don't have any AD close to me, so I have to trust you on that :-) > >> The only part I'm not sure of is which ones should we include and >> which ones should we ignore. I suspect we should go to the full >> extent and make the API as complete as possible... > > For me it is the "Deleted" control now. Maybe SD_FLAGS a bit later. Ok, let's go for the first one quickly then.
