On 10/09/2014 06:48 PM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 10/09/2014 05:51 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 11:44 +0200, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 10/09/2014 12:15 AM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
On Wed, 2014-10-08 at 17:19 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:53:39 -0400
Nathaniel McCallum<npmccal...@redhat.com> wrote:
As I understand my code, all servers will have csnD. Some servers will
have valueB and others will have valueD, but valueB == valueD.
We *never* discard a CSN. We only discard the counter/watermark mods
in the replication operation.
What Thierry is saying is that the individual attributes in the entry
have associate the last CSN that modified them. Because you remove the
mods when ValueD == ValueB the counter attribute will not have the
associated CSN changed. But it doesn't really matter because the plugin
will always keep things consistent.
Attached is a new version. It removes this optimization. If server X has
valueB/csnB and receives valueD/csnD and valueB == valueD, the
replication will be applied without any modification. However, if valueB
valueD and csnD > csnB, the counter mods will still be stripped.
It also collapses the error check from betxnpre to bepre now that we
have a fix forhttps://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47919 committed. The
betxnpre functions are completely removed. Also, a dependency on 389
188.8.131.52 (not yet released) is added.
For me the code is fine. Ack.
New attached patch.
I have two minor comments:
* in preop_mod, when a direct update moves the counter
backward you send UNWILLING to perform with a message.
The message is allocated with slapi_ch_smprintf, you
may free it with slapi_ch_free_string (rather than
* About this message, for example when you have these
MODS (I admit they make no sens):
The returned message will be "Will not decrement
ipatokenHOTPcounter", because 'simulate' will return
Is it the message you expected ?
I changed the logic in simulate(). Please review it.
The patch is ok for me. Ack.
Great! Thanks for tough review. However, we will still need to wait for 389 to
release so that we can add the new required DS version at least to FreeIPA
Copr. Otherwise all development/CI would break.
Freeipa-devel mailing list