URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/59 Title: #59: ipa_netgroups: Lowercase key to htable
lslebodn commented: """ On (20/10/16 02:58), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:55:12AM -0700, lslebodn wrote: >> On (20/10/16 02:20), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> >On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:40:15AM -0700, lslebodn wrote: >> >> On (20/10/16 01:21), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> >> >before the patch: >> >> >``` >> >> >[jhrozek@client] sssd $ [] getent netgroup ngr1 >> >> >ngr1 (-,user1,ipa.test) >> >> >[jhrozek@client] sssd $ [] getent netgroup ngr2 >> >> > >> >> >[jhrozek@client] sssd $ [] >> >> >``` >> >> > >> >> >After the patch: >> >> >``` >> >> >[jhrozek@client] sssd $ [(review)] getent netgroup ngr1 >> >> >ngr1 (-,user1,ipa.test) >> >> >[jhrozek@client] sssd $ [(review)] getent netgroup ngr2 >> >> >ngr2 (-,user1,ipa.test) (-,user1,ipa.test) >> >> >[jhrozek@client] sssd $ [(review)] >> >> >``` >> >> > >> >> >So the netgroup can be resolved, but is it correct that the netgroup >> >> >member is listed twice? >> >> > >> >> It's impossible to say without content of netgroups on server. >> >> Could you provide them? >> > >> >Same as the reproducer in the ticket. But the point is, is it ever OK to >> >print duplicates? I guess they are harmless, but it just looks odd. >> > >> Then the bug is not fixed > >Well, a different bug is fixed (and Michal was arguing there are two >bugs..). Before, the netgroup was not resolved at all, after the patch it is. > Thank you very much for reminder. I look closer to the ticket https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/3116 and it was closed as a duplicate of #3117 We should not used closed ticket in commit message. Therefore closing this PR as rejected. LS """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/59#issuecomment-255066482
_______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
