New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow mod_post to consider existing objects for addition to MEP #1471
Comments
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2015-03-28 06:43:07 Additionally, the patch has commented tests and locations in mep.c for the inverse, where when you take an entry that has a managed entry, and remove "enough" parts of it to fall out of the mep scope, that the managed entry should be removed also. This behaviour however, being more "destructive" should be controlled by a configuration item to state whether the current MEP behaviour or the new behaviour is followed:
|
Comment from nhosoi (@nhosoi) at 2015-04-02 05:55:27 Hi William, I reviewed the mep.c part. Your fix looks good. Also, setting the milestone to 1.3.4. Thank you so much for your contribution! |
Comment from nhosoi (@nhosoi) at 2015-04-02 06:02:14 Replying to [comment:1 Firstyear]:
Regarding this proposal, once the origin entry gets out of scope of the mep plug-in, the managed entry can be manually removed, can it? (Please note that if it is in the scope, it is not allowed.) Automated deletion sometimes causes unexpected surprise. To implement it, a new config parameter needs to be introduced and switch between reserving the current behavior and the new behavior. But the proposal itself looks very useful. Could you please open a new ticket for the feature? |
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2015-04-02 07:03:14 I'll tidy this up into two patches. One for the tests, one for the feature. I will add another ticket for the deletion feature. I suspected that configuration option for this would be the preferred way forwards. The deletion is a bit more complicated to implement, and I have a skeleton version of it partially working already. I'm currently investigating a few outstanding failures in the tests, and will update accordingly. |
Comment from nhosoi (@nhosoi) at 2015-04-02 23:54:10 additional patch: it'll avoid the mod ops if it was called from the plug-in. but still my test does not pass... keep investigating... |
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2015-04-08 12:16:19 Patch to allow MEP to create managed entries if an object modification would cause the object to satisfy the mep criteria |
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2015-04-08 12:17:47 Updated patch with cleaned up tests. Passes full dynamic test suite and stress test. |
Comment from nhosoi (@nhosoi) at 2015-07-07 02:13:55 Ticket has been cloned to Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1240405 |
Comment from firstyear (@Firstyear) at 2015-07-07 04:57:14 I would rather focus on http://directory.fedoraproject.org/docs/389ds/design/mep-rework.html and drop these changes. There were too many issues with my original approach. |
Comment from nhosoi (@nhosoi) at 2015-07-07 05:15:40 Replying to [comment:10 Firstyear]:
Thanks for the clarification, William. I'm going to close the associated bug. |
Comment from nhosoi (@nhosoi) at 2017-02-11 22:58:49 Metadata Update from @nhosoi:
|
Cloned from Pagure issue: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/48140
MEP expects that the only time it will create a managed entry is on the addition of the entry. Modifying an existing entry and then having it retrospectively add the managed entry is not supported.
Currently, if one creates an object such as:
objectClass: top
objectClass: account
uid: foo
sn: bar
Followed by a mod operation to add posixAttributes, in a standard MEP with user -> group template, the group is not created, because the operation isn't considered unless it's an add.
This attached patch adds support and dynamic plugin tests to allow MEP to create managed entries if a mod operation would bring an entry into a state where it now satisfies the criteria of the template.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: