[389-devel] Re: please review: Issue 4653 - refactor ldbm backend to allow replacement of BDB - phase 3e - dbscan #4709

Hi Jeff, This is a public mailing list - if you no longer wish to receive these mail, you should unsubscribe: "To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org " > On 2 Apr 2021, at 22:13, Jeff Gentry wrote: > > Reviewed what?? I don’t know who you are . > > Jeff

[389-devel] Re: please review: Issue 4653 - refactor ldbm backend to allow replacement of BDB - phase 3e - dbscan #4709

Reviewed what?? I don’t know who you are . Jeff Gentry jgen...@bamawise.com 205-365-7762 > On Apr 2, 2021, at 6:38 AM, Pierre Rogier wrote: > >  > FYI: William already reviewed it but would like a second opinion. > > https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4709 > -- > -- > > 389

[389-devel] Re: Please review: PR 50843 and PR 50837

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 03:46:49PM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please review these PRs: > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50837 > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50842 Wrong PR number. The right one - https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50843 > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 50584, 49212 - docker healthcheck and configuration

Reminder to review this please! > On 5 Sep 2019, at 08:55, William Brown wrote: > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/50584 > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49212 > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50585 > > Thanks! > > -- > Sincerely, > > William >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: PRs 50551, 50570, 50573, 50579

Will do first thing next week :) > On 30 Aug 2019, at 21:14, Simon Pichugin wrote: > > Hi team, > there are few PRs on review from me. Please, check... > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50551 > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50570 >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 50206 - Account IDM CLI - WIP

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:56:43AM +1000, William Brown wrote: > Sure thing, I'll look soon :) Great, thanks! Forgot to put the link: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50549 > > > On 16 Aug 2019, at 11:55, Simon Pichugin wrote: > > > > Hi team, > > I have a big chunk of work ready

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 50206 - Account IDM CLI - WIP

Sure thing, I'll look soon :) > On 16 Aug 2019, at 11:55, Simon Pichugin wrote: > > Hi team, > I have a big chunk of work ready for review. > The main part is done and I just need to polish it a bit more and add > more tests. > > In a mean while... > > William, could you please take a look?

[389-devel] Re: Please review

@Mark Reynolds Thanks and welcome . Regards Anuj Borah On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 7:31 PM Mark Reynolds wrote: > > On 7/16/19 8:12 PM, Anuj Borah wrote: > > @Mark Reynolds > > @Mark Reynolds > > >>> The code itself looks fine to me, but I find it odd you are testing > matching rules by

[389-devel] Re: Please review

On 7/16/19 8:12 PM, Anuj Borah wrote: @Mark Reynolds @Mark Reynolds >>> The code itself looks fine to me, but I find it odd you are testing matching rules by creating COS entries in two of those PRs. Cos entries are used here as part of  ( objectclass:

[389-devel] Re: Please review

@Mark Reynolds @Mark Reynolds >>> The code itself looks fine to me, but I find it odd you are testing matching rules by creating COS entries in two of those PRs. Cos entries are used here as part of ( objectclass: extensibleObject ) As cos template has ( objectclass: ['top','cosTemplate'

[389-devel] Re: Please review

@Mark Reynolds >>> The code itself looks fine to me, but I find it odd you are testing matching rules by creating COS entries in two of those PRs. Cos entries are used here as part of ( objectclass: extensibleObject ) As cos template has ( objectclass: ['top','cosTemplate' ,

[389-devel] Re: Please review

On 7/15/19 8:00 AM, Anuj Borah wrote: @Simon Pichugin Please review: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50468 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50471 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50482 The code itself looks fine to me, but I find

[389-devel] Re: Please review

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:30:24PM +0530, Anuj Borah wrote: >[1]@Simon Pichugin Sure, I'll get to it soon. I just got back from a long PTO. But also, I am not the only team member with review rights :) So I am not sure why you quote me personally... Thanks, Simon > >Please review: >

[389-devel] Re: Please review

@Simon Pichugin Please review: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50468 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50471 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50482 Regards AB A On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:17 PM Anuj Borah wrote: > @Simon Pichugin > > Please review: > >

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

> On 13 Jun 2019, at 17:00, Mark Reynolds wrote: > > > On 6/13/19 4:02 AM, William Brown wrote: >> >>> On 12 Jun 2019, at 17:36, Mark Reynolds wrote: >>> >>> http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html >> >> Looks great! >> >> Instead of "Success" we could use

[389-devel] Re: please review: PR 50447 - Revise replication agreement status messages

We have a problem...  FreeIPA, as well as other unknown applications, expect the status to be in the old format.  While we can fix this in FreeIPA, it will still break older versions of FreeIPA during replica installs when it tries to setup replication with the new version.  So all

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

On 6/13/19 4:02 AM, William Brown wrote: On 12 Jun 2019, at 17:36, Mark Reynolds wrote: http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html Looks great! Instead of "Success" we could use "Healthy" because replication isn't a success/fail, it's a longterm "good/bad" IE

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

> On 12 Jun 2019, at 17:36, Mark Reynolds wrote: > > http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html Looks great! Instead of "Success" we could use "Healthy" because replication isn't a success/fail, it's a longterm "good/bad" IE healthy/failing state. So perhaps

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

On 6/12/19 12:53 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Mark Reynolds wrote: On 6/12/19 11:41 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Mark Reynolds wrote: http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html conn_error is 0 in all the examples. What would this be used for? Well there are two type of

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

Mark Reynolds wrote: > > On 6/12/19 11:41 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: >> Mark Reynolds wrote: >>> http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html >> conn_error is 0 in all the examples. What would this be used for? > Well there are two type of errors that can occur.  One is a

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

Sorry Mark, my email was confusing. First you make a good point. Giving extra info does not hurt. I just noticed that replication status contains two RC (ldap and replication), while init status contains three RC (ldap, replication, connection). So the json struct should differ from

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

On 6/12/19 12:08 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: Hi Mark, Looking very good to me. For replication status there is either ldaprc or replrc. The message is self explaining if it is a LDAP or replication error. IMHO I think json could only contain 'repl_status' that can contain ldaprc or replrc.

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

Hi Mark, Looking very good to me. For replication status there is either ldaprc or replrc. The message is self explaining if it is a LDAP or replication error. IMHO I think json could only contain 'repl_status' that can contain ldaprc or replrc. For init status, it exists ldaprc, connrc and

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

On 6/12/19 11:41 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Mark Reynolds wrote: http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html conn_error is 0 in all the examples. What would this be used for? Well there are two type of errors that can occur.  One is a replication error (missing CSN,

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

Mark Reynolds wrote: > http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html conn_error is 0 in all the examples. What would this be used for? Otherwise this looks ok to me. I assume we'll need to do coordinate releases with IPA so the new format can be handled properly? I guess

[389-devel] Re: Please review

@Simon Pichugin Please review: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50336 Regards Anuj Borah On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:50 PM Anuj Borah wrote: > @Simon Pichugin > > Please review: > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50328 > > Regards > Anuj Borah > > > > On Thu, May 9,

[389-devel] Re: Please review

Hi Simon , Rebsed onto master . Regards Anuj Borah On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 3:54 PM Simon Pichugin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 02:15:55PM +0530, Anuj Borah wrote: > >Hi all, > Hi Anuj, > > >Please review these PRs. > >Pending from Long Time. > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 02:15:55PM +0530, Anuj Borah wrote: >Hi all, Hi Anuj, >Please review these PRs. >Pending from Long Time. >[1]https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50180 >[2]https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50192 Could you please rebase them onto master?

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Ticket 49793 - Updated descriptions in dscreate example INF file

Attached a new patch with updated header that follows the project's conventions. Ticket: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49793 Regards, Marc On 18.06.2018 12:51, Marc Muehlfeld wrote: Hi, with regard to documentation, I made some changes to the "dscreate example" output: 1) I

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49581 - Fix dynamic plugins test suite

Fixed the issues Viktor has reported. Please, review. On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:25:35PM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:17:06PM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > > Hi team, > > please review a PR for dynamic plugins test suite fix. > > > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49657 - Fix cascading replication scenario in lib389 API

The issues mentioned by Mark were fixed. On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:32:22PM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please, review: > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49659 > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49657 > > Thanks! > Simon >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49538 - replace cacertdir_rehash with openssl rehash

I've changed it to c_rehash tool and added a small fix related t remove_ds_instance. On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 04:06:35PM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please, review: > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49538 > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49651 > > Thanks, > Simon

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49109 - nsDS5ReplicaTransportInfo should accept StartTLS as an option

The LDAP+StartTLS was changed back to StartTLS by Mark suggestions and I support his commentary. https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49613#comment-50699 Please, check once again if everything is okay. Thanks! Simon On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:38:51AM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > On Wed,

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49581 - Fix dynamic plugins test suite

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:17:06PM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please review a PR for dynamic plugins test suite fix. > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49581 > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49626 > I devided it in two parts for easy review. > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49109 - nsDS5ReplicaTransportInfo should accept StartTLS as an option

Hi team, as William and Matus proposed, I've changed nsDS5ReplicaTransportInfo: TLS to LDAP+StartTLS. Also, I've changed existed TLS test suite so it covers the change. On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:45:52AM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please, review: > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49593 - NDN cache stats should be under the global stats

Fixed issues with inttypes. On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:01:33PM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Fixed compile warnings. > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 06:53:53PM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > > Hi team, > > please, review: > > > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49595 > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49593 - NDN cache stats should be under the global stats

Fixed compile warnings. On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 06:53:53PM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please, review: > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49595 > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49593 > > Thanks, > Simon > ___ > 389-devel

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Add a test suite for ds-replcheck tool RFE

Please, review the full version of the RFE test suite. https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49567 - Original Message - > From: "Simon Pichugin" > To: "389 Directory server developer discussion." > <389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Wednesday,

[389-devel] Re: please review: Ticket 49296 - Fix race condition in connection code that allows anonymous limits to be applied after the initial bind occurs

Fixed typos in commit message https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/5fe67b5583f885d5954485320da3eb3fd0dc11b6d3be4fc0e2d6146232db0b9e-0001-Ticket-49296-Fix-race-condition-in-connection-code-w.patch On 02/17/2018 06:45 PM, Mark Reynolds wrote: > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49296 >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49043 - Add a test suite

Final version. All tests from other tickets were added. Please, review. https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49558 - Original Message - > From: "Simon Pichugin" > To: "389 Directory server developer discussion." > <389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent:

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 47536 - Add Python 3 support and move test case to suites

I've fixed the issues: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/e023d32821b13103e662b94b1348a0a3016b3ea15fd24b4e2bebfefbdae9e8e6-0001-Issue-47536-Add-Python-3-support-and-move-test-case-.patch On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:53:17PM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please, review the

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue #77 - Refactor docstrings in rST format - part 2

https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/files/a7f959f31cfd6f5b4f837dd715bf1d0beb96a182e30a0c1b13bfc4d3cdfbc905-0001-Issue-lib389-77-Refactor-docstrings-in-rST-format-pa.patch On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:44:07PM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > A second part: > > https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/77 >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue #77 - Refactor docstrings in rST format - part 2

A second part: https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/77 https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/files/b050293a47890b3527564aa336937830b0fc298a90037f972e46d49477134a24-0001-Issue-49381-Refactor-numerous-suite-docstrings-Part-.patch On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 07:33:24PM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue lib389 3 - Python 3 support for ACL test suite

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:14:12PM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please, review the Python 3 support patch for ACL. > > Also, please, check it if you are a developer. Because it contains > the indended way to use lib389 feature for Python 3 support. > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49381 - Refactor numerous suite docstrings - Part 2

Fixed the issues: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49381 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/b050293a47890b3527564aa336937830b0fc298a90037f972e46d49477134a24-0001-Issue-49381-Refactor-numerous-suite-docstrings-Part-.patch On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 03:27:36PM +0200, Simon Pichugin

[389-devel] Re: please review: Ticket 49038 - Remove legacy replication

On 10/04/2017 10:06 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > Hi, > > this patch contains a script to remove the config entry on upgrade, > but Alexander says on f26 it isn't called. any idea ? What version of 389?  This change should not be available f26, its only in 1.3.7 (f27).  > > Ludwig > > On

[389-devel] Re: please review: Ticket 49038 - Remove legacy replication

Hi, this patch contains a script to remove the config entry on upgrade, but Alexander says on f26 it isn't called. any idea ? Ludwig On 07/12/2017 09:48 PM, Mark Reynolds wrote: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49038

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49381 - Refactor numerous suite docstrings

New version: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49381 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/525619ec2b6d51ca4a78998e6b40c43d344e19d180e97ee67f1e09c82721f86f-0001-Issue-49381-Refactor-numerous-suite-docstrings.patch On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:42:20PM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49381 - Refactor numerous suite docstrings

New version: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49381 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/afa9b1a73b02e21633279b939d02deff33328cdc100b4c7c80645dd6b532f7ac-0001-Issue-49381-Refactor-numerous-suite-docstrings.patch On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 05:42:20PM +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 79 - Fix replica.py and add tests

Add enum34 to pip and python-enum34 to specfile for RHEL7/Fedora. https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/79 https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/files/f21bb2a58d89e3939a8a2c1d1579157e028e03de5285012a261bf27ec4b2b1aa-0001-Issue-79-Fix-replica.py-and-add-tests.patch On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:10:57PM +0200,

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Draft of the big lib389 and pytest guide

Hi team, a new version: https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/77#comment-451622 https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/files/6047ac156e06192837271afc2770a83f7f3206400669537bb1d8f43ab7b9a434-Guidelines-for-using-pytest-and-lib389_47541162.html Thanks, Simon On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:31:50PM +0200, Simon

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 79 - Fix replica.py and add tests

Add enum34 to requirements.txt for py2 compatibility https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/79 https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/files/7be353523a4a7ad8382a9a98ad778819f5e7557ab1812b9d1e595499ef821244-0001-Issue-79-Fix-replica.py-and-add-tests.patch On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:28:05PM +0200, Simon

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 79 - Fix replica.py and add tests

New changes regarding _constants.py module. - replace REPLICAROLE_* with ReplicaRole(Enum) object - change the type of REPLICA_FLAGS_* from str to int - remove not used constants REPLICA_TYPE_* and REPLICA_FLAGS_CON https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/79

[389-devel] Re: Please review: poc - optional rust queue for ns events

On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 17:15 +1000, William Brown wrote: > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49325 > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/8ef878a1004308b10982350df76c0378063147024706bdc774bd8b755e07cd67-0001-Ticket-49325-Proof-of-concept-rust-tqueue-in-sds.patch > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: ticket 49287 - csn pending lists don't work across multiple backends

here is a revised patch, integrating Williams comments and a contribution by Thierry https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/6d855f63e2e6968692eb06332c322aedbdc3e528232e63881344077864be75ec-0001-Ticket-49287-v3-extend-csnpl-handling-to-multiple-ba.patch On 07/05/2017 01:02 PM, Ludwig Krispenz

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Ticket 49043

On 06/09/2017 09:02 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > Hi everybody, > > here is the result of my work on replication conflicts. I would like > you to review and comment. I know that given the complexity of the > problem and the volume of teh patches this is not an easy task - I'm > sure there is need

[389-devel] Re: Please review: lib389 bytes vs str

On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:14 +1000, William Brown wrote: > https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/63 > > https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/394bd115d8a1c00f70dffb5f59cad7c49dd82fe4e791551432862fb508df033c-0001-Ticket-63-lib389-python-3-fix.patch > This fixes some more issues as well:

[389-devel] Re: Please review: TLS external support for lib389

On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 15:42 +1000, William Brown wrote: > https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/32 > > https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/c28190e9d78697b986b680b2f823943fd0cdd947350aa510f09260144121eeeb-0001-Ticket-32-Add-TLS-external-bind-support-for-testing.patch > > Didn't add the test case >.<

[389-devel] Re: Please review new Replication Diff Tool

On 04/12/2017 06:58 PM, William Brown wrote: > On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 17:02 -0400, Mark Reynolds wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This is a beta version of a replication diff tool written in python. >> >> Design page (this needs updating - I hope to get that done tonight) >> >>

[389-devel] Re: Please review new Replication Diff Tool

On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 17:02 -0400, Mark Reynolds wrote: > Hello, > > This is a beta version of a replication diff tool written in python. > > Design page (this needs updating - I hope to get that done tonight) > > http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-diff-tool-design.html > > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: DSLdapObject compare function and user compare tests

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 06:10 +, Ankit Yadav wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I have changed the compare function, took help from Entry.__eq__ function. > I have also updated the user_compare_test.py, Now it includes 4 assertions. > Details can be found in lib389/tests/idm/user_compare_test.py >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: DSLdapObject compare function and user compare tests

On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 23:02 +, Ankit Yadav wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I was working on issue #1 lib389 cn=config comparison, I have done some work > in that direction. I have added a compare function on DSLdapObject and have > written a test for comparing user object. Currently this test

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 49174 nsIdleTimeout of -1 causes connection to fail

On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 14:16 +1000, William Brown wrote: > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49174 > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/72218d7fe921f50f3f86ce24ea9c5d592dc5c2fa8d5ae22fa5b11caf9d6c4a53-0001-Ticket-49174-nunc-stans-can-not-use-negative-timeout.patch > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 49156 - Add more IDs and fix docstrings

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:51:54PM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please, review my small patch that should fix the points I've missed. > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49156 >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: #49121 ns-slapd crashes in ldif_sput due to the output buf size is less than the real size.

On 02/12/2017 06:51 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote: > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49121 > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/d857ff4919940bcebeae870774896783f7b6e86ce08a2c2e924610ac2335f8de-0001-Ticket-49121-ns-slapd-crashes-in-ldif_sput-due-to-th.patch > > These odd » characters

[389-devel] Re: please review: Ticket 48978 - Fix implicit function declaration

On (29/11/16 23:59), Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48978 > >https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48797/0001-Ticket-48978-Fix-implicit-function-declaration.patch > I am sorry I attached the patch to the different ticket

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Ticket 47747 - Add topology fixtures module

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 04:28:59PM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please, review: > > https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47747 > https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47747/0001-Ticket-47747-Add-topology-fixtures-module.patch Also, please, take a look at the main clean up

[389-devel] Re: Please review 48961: Allow reset of cn=config values to default.

On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 15:58 +1000, William Brown wrote: > https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48961 > > Please read this comment for an explanation of the change, > > https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48961#comment:7 http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/configuration-reset.html Combined

[389-devel] Re: Please review design proposal for tickets 47986 and 48976

Thanks, I may have missed it, but your suggestion about configuring and behaviour sounds good. I will update my doc. Regards, Ludwig On 10/12/2016 05:19 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: Hello, I would think of two options * If admin decides to switch to backend, it should not be prevented

[389-devel] Re: Please review design proposal for tickets 47986 and 48976

Hello, I would think of two options * If admin decides to switch to backend, it should not be prevented and the backend moves to 'backend' * periodic (hourly) checking (IMHO not configurable and always run), checking being the same mechanism as 'auto' o in-sync->backend o

[389-devel] Re: Please review design proposal for tickets 47986 and 48976

On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 17:58 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > there is a problem not yet covered in the proposal: setting the backend > to "referral-on-update" until the topology is in sync prevents to ealry > client updates, but what to do about internal updates, eg passwordpolicy > attributes.

[389-devel] Re: Please review design proposal for tickets 47986 and 48976

there is a problem not yet covered in the proposal: setting the backend to "referral-on-update" until the topology is in sync prevents to ealry client updates, but what to do about internal updates, eg passwordpolicy attributes. I have a wild idea, but maybe someone has a suggestion on how

[389-devel] Re: Please review design proposal for tickets 47986 and 48976

On 09/30/2016 02:15 AM, Noriko Hosoi wrote: Hi Ludwig, On 09/29/2016 05:43 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: This is the initial proposal, thanks for your feedback http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/delay-accepting-updates-after-init.html Please help me understanding the design... I'm

[389-devel] Re: Please review design proposal for tickets 47986 and 48976

Hi Ludwig, On 09/29/2016 05:43 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: This is the initial proposal, thanks for your feedback http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/delay-accepting-updates-after-init.html Please help me understanding the design... I'm having a bit hard time to figure out the

[389-devel] Re: Please review: nunc-stans 62, 55, 61

On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 15:30 +1000, William Brown wrote: > Please review in this order: > > https://fedorahosted.org/nunc-stans/ticket/62 > > https://fedorahosted.org/nunc-stans/attachment/ticket/62/0001-Ticket-62-Remove-unnecessary-counters-from-jobs.patch > >

[389-devel] Re: Please review 48992: Total init may fail if the pushed schema is rejected

Hi Thierry, the description in the commit is now fine, but given that the choice of LDAP_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION is a bit arbitrary it would be good to have a comment where it is set, explaining why this error code was used. About which error code to choose, if you have to pick one of the errors

[389-devel] Re: Please review: ticket #48766 Replication changelog can incorrectly skip over updates

Hi, here is the latest correction to the changelog fix, in fact it is Thierry's version of teh fix which simplified the logic a bit https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48766/0001-PATCH-use-a-consumer-maxcsn-only-as-anchor-if-suppli.patch Ludwig On 05/23/2016 03:06 PM, Ludwig

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Fix warnings Wstrict prototypes

On 09/04/2016 07:12 PM, William Brown wrote: On Sat, 2016-09-03 at 18:07 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: ehlo, https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48979 The 1st 16 patches are preparation for a last huge patch which uses "(void)" for functions which does not expect any arguments. I have

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Fix warnings Wstrict prototypes

On Sat, 2016-09-03 at 18:07 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > ehlo, > > https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48979 > > The 1st 16 patches are preparation for a last huge patch > which uses "(void)" for functions which does not expect > any arguments. > I have tested and acked this patch series

[389-devel] Re: Please review fix for regression by #48402 patch

https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48402/0001-provide-backend-dir-in-suffix-template.patch On 08/24/2016 05:51 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: This is a heads up, Mark found that the commit of the patch for #48402 breaks new installs with setup-ds.pl. I don't understand why, looks like

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Ticket #48965 - Fix generation of the pre-release version

On Mon, Aug 22 2016 at 4:31:57 pm CEST, Viktor Ashirov wrote: > https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48965 > > https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48965/0001-Ticket-48965-Fix-generation-of-the-pre-release-versi.patch Fix building failures using rpm.mk:

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 48951 dsconf and dsadm foundations

On 08/22/2016 05:23 PM, William Brown wrote: On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 21:33 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote: On 08/21/2016 09:02 PM, William Brown wrote: Anything that is yum, systemd command, etc. is ansible. Anything about installing an instance or 389 specific we do. I think that is an arbitrary

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 48951 dsconf and dsadm foundations

On 08/21/2016 09:56 PM, William Brown wrote: > On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 19:44 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote: >> On 08/21/2016 05:28 PM, William Brown wrote: >>> On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:21 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: Hi William, On 08/19/2016 02:22 AM, William Brown wrote: > On

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 48951 dsconf and dsadm foundations

On 08/21/2016 07:56 PM, William Brown wrote: On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 19:44 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote: On 08/21/2016 05:28 PM, William Brown wrote: On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:21 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: Hi William, On 08/19/2016 02:22 AM, William Brown wrote: On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 14:53

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 48951 dsconf and dsadm foundations

On Sun, 2016-08-21 at 19:44 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote: > On 08/21/2016 05:28 PM, William Brown wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:21 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > >> Hi William, > >> > >> On 08/19/2016 02:22 AM, William Brown wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 14:53 +1000, William Brown

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 48951 dsconf and dsadm foundations

On 08/21/2016 05:28 PM, William Brown wrote: On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:21 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: Hi William, On 08/19/2016 02:22 AM, William Brown wrote: On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 14:53 +1000, William Brown wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48951

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 48951 dsconf and dsadm foundations

On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 11:21 +0200, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: > Hi William, > > On 08/19/2016 02:22 AM, William Brown wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 14:53 +1000, William Brown wrote: > >> https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48951 > >> > >>

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 48951 dsconf and dsadm foundations

Hi William, On 08/19/2016 02:22 AM, William Brown wrote: On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 14:53 +1000, William Brown wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48951 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48951/0001-Ticket-48951-dsadm-and-dsconf-base-files.patch

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 48951 dsconf and dsadm foundations

On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 14:53 +1000, William Brown wrote: > https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48951 > > https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48951/0001-Ticket-48951-dsadm-and-dsconf-base-files.patch >

[389-devel] Re: Please review: nunc stans 57, job state machine

On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 07:49 -0400, Mark Reynolds wrote: > On 07/13/2016 02:28 AM, William Brown wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 14:47 +1000, William Brown wrote: > >> https://fedorahosted.org/nunc-stans/ticket/57 > >> > >>

[389-devel] Re: Please review: nunc stans 57, job state machine

On 07/13/2016 02:28 AM, William Brown wrote: > On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 14:47 +1000, William Brown wrote: >> https://fedorahosted.org/nunc-stans/ticket/57 >> >> https://fedorahosted.org/nunc-stans/attachment/ticket/57/0001-Ticket-57-Implement-a-strict-state-machine-for-nunc-.patch >> >>

[389-devel] Re: Please review(2nd): #48402 allow plugins to detect a restore or import

i also addressed the case of online import, which came up in the discussion during review. Can you please review again: https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48402/0001-Ticket-48402-v3-allow-plugins-to-detect-a-restore-or.patch Thanks, Ludwig On 02/17/2016 02:12 PM, Ludwig Krispenz

[389-devel] Re: Please review (additional fixes): [389 Project] #48755: moving an entry could make the online init fail

On 06/20/2016 05:55 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote: On 06/20/2016 02:20 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: I have a question about your tombstone entry... You are using entrydn instead of entryrdn? no, sorry for the confusion, I was using ldapsearch to get teh tombstones, not dbscan Hmmm, if that's the case,

[389-devel] Re: Please review (additional fixes): [389 Project] #48755: moving an entry could make the online init fail

On 06/17/2016 09:16 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote: On 06/17/2016 08:49 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 06/17/2016 05:31 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote: On 06/17/2016 12:17 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: Hi Noriko, I still have a doubt on your fix. You now base the entries to be sent only on the parentid

[389-devel] Re: Please review (additional fixes): [389 Project] #48755: moving an entry could make the online init fail

On 06/17/2016 08:49 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: On 06/17/2016 05:31 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote: On 06/17/2016 12:17 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: Hi Noriko, I still have a doubt on your fix. You now base the entries to be sent only on the parentid index, but when creating a tombstone, the entry is

[389-devel] Re: Please review (additional fixes): [389 Project] #48755: moving an entry could make the online init fail

On 06/17/2016 12:17 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: Hi Noriko, I still have a doubt on your fix. You now base the entries to be sent only on the parentid index, but when creating a tombstone, the entry is removed from the parentid index. So you will miss the tombstones in the total init. Well, I

[389-devel] Re: Please review: ticket #48366 - proxyauth support does not work when bound as directory manager

I added some clarifications to the ticket and here is a lib389 test case https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48366/0001-add-testcase-for-ticket-48366-proxyauth-for-root.patch On 02/16/2016 03:35 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48366

[389-devel] Re: Please review (additional fixes): [389 Project] #48755: moving an entry could make the online init fail

On 06/17/2016 02:36 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote: On 06/17/2016 08:42 AM, Martin Babinsky wrote: On 06/17/2016 03:05 AM, Noriko Hosoi wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48755

[389-devel] Re: Please review (additional fixes): [389 Project] #48755: moving an entry could make the online init fail

On 06/17/2016 03:05 AM, Noriko Hosoi wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48755 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48755/0001-Ticket-48755-moving-an-entry-could-make-the-online-i.3.patch git patch file (master) -- additional fix to the server patch

[389-devel] Re: Please review: pep8 fixes for lib389

On 11.06.2016 23:21, William Brown wrote: On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 12:57 +0200, Martin Basti wrote: On 10.06.2016 07:21, William Brown wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48878 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48878/0001-Ticket-48878-pep8-fixes-and-fix-rpm-to-build.patch

  1   2   >