[email protected] wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:33:32PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: >>> Hello Ondrej, >>> I tried your patch but it breaks test064-constraint. >> >> Hi Howard, >> there is useless code that caused it to read an unitialized variable. A >> fix removing that code is at >> ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/Ondrej-Kuznik-20141218-ITS-7781.patch >> >> Thanks for identifying and fixing the problem in the meantime. >> > Ok. But looking at this patch, the lines in question actually are > needed, since they take care of errors in the cases for CONSTRAINT_COUNT > and CONSTRAINT_SET.
Just because I'm curious: What's the use-case for setting size and count to zero? If one wants to forbid an attribute completely one should probably use NOT in a DIT content rule for the STRUCTURAL object class. (This does not mean that this shouldn't be fixed though.) Just my 2 cents. Ciao, Michael.
