https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8528
--- Comment #6 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Ondřej Kuzník from comment #5) > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 04:59:46PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > >> Not saying it's a bad idea, but the interactions with a delete mod might be > >> a little confusing: > > > > Well, that's why I limited the scope of this bug purely to replace ops where > > the entire structure is getting replaced. For add/delete, it must not > > re-order > > anything. > > Not so sure about that, my thinking is a replace: attr should be equal to > > delete: attr > - > add: attr > replaced values > > And you're now saying that's not the case anymore. Actually I was agreeing with you. ;) Like in this example: changetype: modify delete: olcAccess olcAccess: {2} olcAccess: {1} olcAccess: {0} It would be a disaster to re-order things, and the correct thing to do is what you proposed, which is to break them down into individual changes like: changetype: modify delete: olcAccess olcAccess: {2} - delete: olcAccess olcAccess: {1} - delete: olcAccess olcAccess: {0} I.e., reordering it to 0/1/2 would be very bad. ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
