On 21.3.2016 10:17, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 18.3.2016 13:49, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Babinsky wrote:
These patches implement behavior agreed upon during discussion of

However I'm not sure if we want to push them into 4-3 branch (the ticket
is triaged into 4.3.2 milestone) since they modify the framework
behavior quite a bit.

If there is no need to have it there (CC'ing Milan since he is the
reporter), I would retriage it into 4.4 milestone.

+ desc="while getting entries (search base: '{}',"
+ "filter: {})".format(base_dn, filter))

This is going to expose parts of the DIT in an error message to users. We have
tried in the past to hide the implementation. I'd propose logging the error
and making the exception less verbose.

I agree with Rob here, we shouldn't expose internal stuff in error messages for users.

In this particular case, even if we included internal stuff in the error message, it should be the error message returned by the server rather than this ad-hoc message.

IMHO it actually helps to print the DN. At very least the user can see if the
error is happening always with the same DN or if it keeps changing.

In other words, for user it is not that important to understand meaning of the
DN but it might be important to see if it is the same or not.

I can't imagine a situation where it would actually be useful for the user (as opposed to the admin, who has access to logs) to know the base DN of some arbitrary LDAP search operation. Could you give an example?

Jan Cholasta

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to