On 21.3.2016 12:25, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> 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
>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5677
>>>> 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?

I meant anyone who is facing an issue. I always prefer messages 'operation XYZ
failed' over 'an operation failed'. Anyway, you are right that admin can look
into logs so I'm pulling my comment above.

Petr^2 Spacek

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

Reply via email to