Dne 10.12.2014 v 17:53 Martin Basti napsal(a):
On 10/12/14 16:02, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 12/10/2014 02:35 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 10.12.2014 v 11:53 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
On 12/09/2014 01:56 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 5.12.2014 v 12:01 Jan Cholasta napsal(a):
Dne 5.12.2014 v 11:43 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
On 12/05/2014 11:34 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 5.12.2014 v 09:03 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
On 12/04/2014 09:36 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
+ if x509.get_der_subject(cert, x509.DER) !=
+ raise admintool.ScriptError("Subject name
I think we can expect this to be a pretty common error, given
the default behavior of Microsoft Certificate Services. I would
like to make the error message more juicy.
We need to make sure we offer some pointers for these users or
just blame IPA for screwing up. So, the information I wrote
need to somehow get to the error message as a potential/likely
cause of the problem. Whether you write it in the error message
or update the design page and just insert a link is up to you.
I would rather document this and have users read the documentation,
should do anyway when something goes wrong. There are many
are common and users may blame IPA for them and I don't see what
so special that it should require a special treatment.
I saw several reasons:
- Certificate&installation error are more common than the others and
users are usually quite lost in what to do with them.
- In this case, we know by 90% probability what is the root cause
- It will block one of the main use cases for the new CA renewal
and people will likely hit it as MS CAs is one of the most common
and this is it's default behavior.
Giving more details in this case will not hurt us, but benefit
I still do not see the harm.
I do not see a harm either, my point is that we should probably point
the user to documentation when *anything* in *any* script goes wrong,
not just when some arbitrarily cherry-picked error occurs.
Anyway, I have created
Good. Do you plan to reference the section or enhance the error
I plan to reference <http://www.freeipa.org/page/Troubleshooting>.
See the attached patch (385).
I think the reference for the Troubleshooting page should be more
that people only see the URL only for the cases we give specific
Otherwise I assume they will just ignore the page if they do not
advise for other errors.
Right, makes sense.
Other idea would be to give reference to the article when the actual
generated - as a heads up.
I think referring to troubleshooting before there actually is some
not very good for publicity.
Ah, that's a good point - in this purpose it would be better to have it
somewhere else or only refer to the MS article.
Anyway, updated patch attached, it implements what you suggested
link to the troubleshooting guide is added to relevant error
think about this in more broad terms when the time comes for the
Ok. I am fine with the patch conceptually. So now just someone
to make sure it did not break anything :-)
ACK, seems it doesnt break anything.
Thanks for the review.
Freeipa-devel mailing list