On 2.3.2012 19:43, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 11:40 -0500, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 1.3.2012 20:57, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Rob Crittenden wrote:
Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 17.1.2012 04:55, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 13.1.2012 17:39, Rob Crittenden napsal(a):
Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 14.12.2011 16:21, Rob Crittenden napsal(a):
Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 14.12.2011 15:23, Rob Crittenden napsal(a):
Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 14.12.2011 05:20, Rob Crittenden napsal(a):
The sudo schema now defines sudoOrder, sudoNotBefore and
sudoNotAfter
but these weren't available in the sudorule plugin.
I've added support for these. sudoOrder enforces uniqueness
because
duplicates are undefined.
I also added support for a GeneralizedTime parameter type.
This is
similar to the existing AccessTime parameter but it only
handles a
single time value.
You should parse the date/time part of the value with
time.strptime(timestr, '%Y%m%d%H%M%S') instead of doing it
manually,
that way you'll get most of the validation for free.
Yes but it gives a crappy error message, just saying that
some
data is
left over not what is wrong.
IMHO having a separate error message for every field in the
time
string
(like you do in the patch) is an overkill, simple "invalid
time"
and/or
"unknown time format" should suffice (we don't have errors
like
"invalid
3rd octet" for IP adresses either).
Well, the work is done, hard to go back on a better error
message.
Also, it would be nice to be able to enter the value in more
user-friendly format (e.g. "2011-12-14 13:01:25 +0100") and
normalize
that to LDAP generalized time.
When dealing with time there are so many ways to input and
display
the
same values this becomes difficult.
I'd expect that the times for these two attributes will be
relatively
simple and I somehow doubt users are going to want
seconds, leap
seconds
or fractions, but we'll need to consider how to do it for
future
consistency (otherwise we could have a case where time is
entered in
one
format for some attributes and another for others).
If we input in a nice way we need to output in the same way.
We could make the preferred input/output time format
user-configurable,
defaulting to current locale time format. This format would be
used
for
output. For input, we could go over a list of formats
(first the
user-configured format, then current locale format, then a
handful of
"standard" formats like YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS) and use the first
format
that can be successfully used to parse the time string.
See how far you get into the rabbit hole with even this simple
format?
I don't mind, as long as it is the right thing to do (IMHO) :)
Anyway, I think this could be done on the client side, so we
might
use
your patch without changes. However, I would prefer if the
parameter
class was more generic, so we could use it (hypothetically) to
store
time in some other way than LDAP generalized time attribute (at
least
name it DateTime please).
Ok, I'm fine with that.
Thanks.
The LDAP GeneralizedTime needs to be either in GMT or include a
differential. This gets us into the territory where the client
could be
in a different timezone than the server which leads us to
why we
dropped
AccessTime in the first place.
Speaking of time zones, the differential alone is not a
sufficient
time
zone description, as it doesn't account for DST. Is there a
way to
store
time in LDAP with full time zone name (just in case it's needed
sometime
in future)?
There is no way to store DST in LDAP (probably for good reason).
Oddly
enough the older LDAP v3 RFC (2252) strongly recommends using
only
GMT
but the RFC that obsoletes it (4517) does not include this.
Thanks for the info.
So I'd like the user to supply the
timezone themselves so I don't have to guess (wrongly) and let
them
worry about differing timezones.
We don't have to guess, IIRC there is a way to get the local
timezone
differential in both Python and JavaScript, so the client could
supply
it automatically if necessary.
I was thinking more about non-IPA clients (like sudo and
notBefore).
I think this can still be done at least in CLI, but it could be
done in
a separate patch.
Updated patches attached.
rob
Patch 919 doesn't cleanly apply on current master (neither does
916
BTW).
Honza
Rebased patch (and 916 too, separately).
rob
Patch 918:
1. LDAP generalized time allows you to omit minutes from time zone
differential, your code treats such values as invalid
2. IMO a better pattern could be used, such as
u'^([0-9]{2}){5,7}([.,][0-9]+)?([-+]([0-9]{2}){1,2}|Z)$'
3. 20120229000Z has malformed minutes, but the error message says
"Malformed seconds"
4. 20120229000+0000 has malformed minutes, but the error message
says
"Missing operator for differential or malformed time string"
5. 201202290000+0000 is valid generalized time, but it causes
"Missing
operator for differential or malformed time string" error
6. Invalid month/day combinations (such as 201202310000Z) are
treated as
valid
7. When + or - is missing, the error message says "Missing operator
..."
- IMO a better term than "operator" is "sign" in this case
8. The DateTime docstring includes grammar definition for MINUS, but
not
for PLUS, DOT or COMMA.
9. I'm not too fond of the _rule_required hack. Can't the same
thing be
done in _validate_scalar?
10. pattern_errmsg should say "Must be of the form
YYYYMMDDHH[MM]Z or
YYYYMMDDHH[MM]{+|-}HHMM"
There might be more bugs in validation that I didn't discover. I
would
suggest you to use a more pythonic approach for the validation code
(e.g. use partition() to split the time zone and fraction from
the rest
of the value, etc.), the current code is rather C-ish, hard to
read and
apparently error-prone.
Patch 919:
1. sudoorder uniqueness is not properly checked in ipa sudorule-mod:
$ ipa sudorule-add rule1
-----------------------
Added Sudo Rule "rule1"
-----------------------
Rule name: rule1
Enabled: TRUE
$ ipa sudorule-add rule2 --order=0
-----------------------
Added Sudo Rule "rule2"
-----------------------
Rule name: rule2
Enabled: TRUE
Sudo order: 0
$ ipa sudorule-add rule3 --order=0
ipa: ERROR: invalid 'order': order must be a unique value (0 already
used by rule2)
$ ipa sudorule-mod rule1 --order=0
--------------------------
Modified Sudo Rule "rule1"
--------------------------
Rule name: rule1
Enabled: TRUE
Sudo order: 0
(now both rule1 and rule2 have sudoorder=0)
2. Shouldn't we check that sudonotbefore<= sudonotafter?
3. sudonotbefore param doc should say "Start of time interval for
which
the entry is valid (YYYYMMDDHH[MM]Z)"
4. sudonotafter param doc should say "End of time interval for which
the
entry is valid (YYYYMMDDHH[MM]Z)"
5. In 60ipasudo.ldif, the ipaSudoRule object class is missing the
sudoOrder, sudoNotBefore and sudoNotAfter attributes. Is this OK?
Both patches need to be rebased.
Honza
Ok, lets take this one step at a time.
This updated patch adds schema for all three attributes but just a
Param
for sudoOrder. I'll have to revisit DateTime for notbefore and
notafter.
I addressed the issue with order and added a test for it.
Schema is fixed on new installs.
ipa-server-install fails with:
[02/Mar/2012:09:13:08 +0100] dse_read_one_file - The entry cn=schema in
file /etc/dirsrv/slapd-IDM-LAB-BOS-REDHAT-COM/schema/60ipasudo.ldif
(lineno: 1) is invalid, error code 21 (Invalid syntax) - object class
ipaSudoRule: Unknown allowed attribute type "sudoNotBefore"
[02/Mar/2012:09:13:08 +0100] dse - Please edit the file to correct the
reported problems and then restart the server.
rob
And now with updated API.txt. Forgot to squash the commit.
rob
Honza
And now the right patch
The issue with clean install is that the sudo attribute types are
shipped in 60sudo.ldif schema, but our schema 60ipasudo.ldif which uses
some attributeTypes defined in 60sudo.ldif is alphabetically before
60sudo.ldif and is this processed first. That's why upgrade worked and
clean install did not.
ACK if you squash with the attached patch which renames 60ipasudo.ldif
to 65ipasudo.ldif so that our schema is processed _after_ the bundled
60ipasudo.ldif.
Martin
Good idea, rolled into my patch.
I hadn't fixed Honza's mod problem completely either. 0 was essentially
a special case because of the way I was looking to see if a sudoorder
change was being requested. I fixed that too and added a specific test
case for it.
rob
ACK.
Honza
--
Jan Cholasta
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
