[email protected] wrote: > Pierangelo Masarati writes: >> Probably related; in any case, misused in slapo-dynlist(5). Now slapd >> doesn't assert() any more. However, the test fails because back-ldif >> does not implement compare, and falls back to be_fetch(), which does not >> trigger dynlist expansion. > > Yes, the "compare without help from the backend" functionality has been > broken for years - which I presume means it's hard to fix, or needs a > different design. > > Should we patch it over by adding Compare to back-ldif and whatever else > lacks it? Or is this a "fix coming Real Soon Now" issue so it's good > to have this reminder from a backend which doesn't provide Compare?
Not sure whether it's about to come sooner or later, but the issue is always about be_fetch, aka bi_entry_get_rw() whose design Is Broken (TM) (actually, it broke when overlays came into play). I don't know how useful it would be to have back-ldif directly implement compare, as soon as one only uses it for back-config and not for a real storage with stacked overlays (however I note that back-config needs at least to nicely interoperate with one overlay: slapo-syncprov). p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it ----------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Fax: +39 0382 476497 Email: [email protected] -----------------------------------
