Hi,
while investigating #1549 and #1550 I stumbled upon a problem. We create
Param(s) as read only entities. This means that using standard methods,
any modifications to Param instances are denied. What happens in #1549
and #1550 is that the code in Param.validate() relies on availability of
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 00:54 +, JR Aquino wrote:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 8:53 AM, JR Aquino wrote:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 03:37 +, JR Aquino wrote:
Rob, I'm afraid I believe that ldap lookup is necessary. The
Martin Kosek wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 00:54 +, JR Aquino wrote:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 8:53 AM, JR Aquino wrote:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 03:37 +, JR Aquino wrote:
Rob, I'm afraid I believe that ldap lookup is
On 08/01/2011 06:34 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
Hi,
while investigating #1549 and #1550 I stumbled upon a problem. We create
Param(s) as read only entities. This means that using standard methods,
any modifications to Param instances are denied. What happens in #1549
and #1550 is that the code
On 01.08.2011 16:13, Adam Young wrote:
On 08/01/2011 06:34 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
Hi,
while investigating #1549 and #1550 I stumbled upon a problem. We create
Param(s) as read only entities. This means that using standard methods,
any modifications to Param instances are denied. What
On 01.08.2011 16:13, Adam Young wrote:
OTOH, if the env is something that can change, then we should not
require it for the validate call. Is it possible to validate without an
env?
I looked at other exceptions thrown and now pass self.cli_name if it
exists and self.name otherwise -- this is
I don't really have the context to ACK it, but it looks a lot better to
me than the previous solution.
On 08/01/2011 09:53 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On 01.08.2011 16:13, Adam Young wrote:
OTOH, if the env is something that can change, then we should not
require it for the validate call.
On 01.08.2011 17:00, Adam Young wrote:
I don't really have the context to ACK it, but it looks a lot better to
me than the previous solution.
Thanks.
Here is what I get without and with the patch:
--
$ ./ipa automountkey-add pune
Map:
ipa: ERROR:
On 08/01/2011 10:01 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On 01.08.2011 17:00, Adam Young wrote:
I don't really have the context to ACK it, but it looks a lot better to
me than the previous solution.
Thanks.
Here is what I get without and with the patch:
--
$ ./ipa
On 01.08.2011 17:15, Adam Young wrote:
On 08/01/2011 10:01 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On 01.08.2011 17:00, Adam Young wrote:
I don't really have the context to ACK it, but it looks a lot better to
me than the previous solution.
Thanks.
Here is what I get without and with the patch:
I reopened #1526 as the fix intorduced a regression.
The attached patch fixes it by correctly computing utctime when it needs
to be used, previously it was calculated and then replaced by the call
to compute the last password change so both attributes were being set to
the same value regardless.
Hi,
as result of discussion on Param and environment/context, here is patch
to fix
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/1549
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/1550
CLI and Web UI work.
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
From 7bbec097dfac402a4b79edc8685b736a53d06aed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
Hi,
as result of discussion on Param and environment/context, here is patch
to fix
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/1549
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/1550
CLI and Web UI work.
nack.
When using ipalib outside of the cli the wrong attribute
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 11:49 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 14:53 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 12:11 -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 07/27/2011 12:00 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 10:41 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
I reopened #1526 as the fix intorduced a regression.
The attached patch fixes it by correctly computing utctime when it needs
to be used, previously it was calculated and then replaced by the call
to compute the last password change so both attributes were being set to
the
On Aug 1, 2011, at 5:56 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 00:54 +, JR Aquino wrote:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 8:53 AM, JR Aquino wrote:
On Jul 21, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Martin Kosek wrote:
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 03:37 +, JR Aquino
Ade Lee from the dogtag team looked at our installer and found that we
restarted the pki-cad process too many times. Re-arranging some code
allows us to restart it just once. The new config time for dogtag is 3
1/2 minutes, down from about 5 1/2.
Ade is working on improvements in pki-silent
On 08/01/2011 03:19 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Ade Lee from the dogtag team looked at our installer and found that we
restarted the pki-cad process too many times. Re-arranging some code
allows us to restart it just once. The new config time for dogtag is 3
1/2 minutes, down from about 5 1/2.
On 08/01/2011 10:26 PM, Adam Young wrote:
On 08/01/2011 03:19 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Ade Lee from the dogtag team looked at our installer and found that
we restarted the pki-cad process too many times. Re-arranging some
code allows us to restart it just once. The new config time for
dogtag
19 matches
Mail list logo
