On 14.6.2016 16:35, Martin Basti wrote:

On 14.06.2016 16:37, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 14.6.2016 16:29, Martin Basti wrote:

On 08.06.2016 14:17, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 06/07/2016 10:42 AM, Martin Basti wrote:

On 07.06.2016 10:43, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 7.6.2016 10:22, Martin Basti wrote:

On 07.06.2016 09:07, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 6.6.2016 18:29, Martin Basti wrote:

On 03.06.2016 14:28, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:
On 06/03/2016 02:19 PM, Martin Basti wrote:

On 03.06.2016 14:13, Stanislav Laznicka wrote:


please remove it from LDAPAddReverseMember too, it contains the


Please see the modified patch.



Pushed to master: c56d65b064e1e0410c03cf1206816cad4d8d86cc

I think the attrs_list was supposed to be passed to the
ldap.get_entry() call rather than removed, which would fix that
reverse member command always acts like --all was specified.

I'm really afraid, what can happen if we put attr_list into
instead of '*', because this code were there for 4 years and I don't
feel happy enough to change it now, what we may break.

Should I revert this commit then and postpone the ticket?

It's a bug and should be fixed. The fix is easy so I see no point in
postponing it. I see no reason to be really afraid, I'm pretty sure
that removing the objectclass attribute (which is invisible in the
CLI anyway) from the output of all the 4 commands that use this code
won't break anything.

It seems that tests expect objectClass to be always returned in
derived methods. Is that expected behavior? If so, please see the
attached patch. I wonder if the keys of the passed options should make
it to attrs_list as well (similarly to LDAPUpdate and LDAPCreate)?

I still don't think that we should use that attrs list, because
according git history, attrs_list was really used only with code that
was removed, and as you can see Standa had add extra objectclass
attribute there

So the assumption here is that if it's in git history, it's not a bug?

The extra object class should *not* be included by default.

(Also I don't see any reason to have this split into 2 patches.)

The first one is revert the patch that removes attr_list, and was pushed.

That does not make it any more special than any other commit.

My 2c

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