Bump for review.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Gabe Alford <redhatri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Jan Cholasta <jchol...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6.8.2015 21:43, Gabe Alford wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Updated patch attached.
>>>
>>> - Time limit is -1 for unlimited. I found this
>>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2011-January/msg00330.html
>>> in reference to keeping the time limit as -1 for unlimited.
>>>
>>
>> This patch does two conflicting things: it coerces time limit of 0 to -1
>> and at the same time prohibits the user to use 0 for time limit. We should
>> do just one of these and IMHO it should be the coercion of 0 to -1.
>>
>> Sure enough, testing time limit at 0 did not work for unlimited as well
>>> as appeared to have negative effects on IPA.
>>>
>>
>> This is because the time limit read from ipa config is not converted to
>> int in ldap2.find_entries(), so the coercion does not work. Fix this and 0
>> will work just fine.
>>
>> Also, I believe that
>>>
>>> http://www.python-ldap.org/doc/html/ldap.html#ldap.LDAPObject.search_ext_s
>>> specifies unlimited for time limit as -1. (Please correct me if I am
>>> wrong.)
>>>
>>
>> python-ldap is layers below our API and should not determine what we use
>> for unlimited time limit. I would prefer if we were self-consistent and use
>> 0 for both time limit and size limit.
>>
>
> A misunderstanding on my part as I thought it was higher up in the API for
> some reason. Updated patch attached.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gabe
>
-- 
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to