Skip to content
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

extraneous closing tag in LDAP Extended result tree #1765

Closed
asfimport opened this issue Jul 24, 2006 · 5 comments
Closed

extraneous closing tag in LDAP Extended result tree #1765

asfimport opened this issue Jul 24, 2006 · 5 comments

Comments

@asfimport
Copy link
Collaborator

mark connolly (Bug 40103):
In a search test, the result tree contains an extraneous closing operation tag.
This prevents the parser from displaying the result as XML.

For example: in the following, the </operation> following </searchresult> should
not exist.

<ldapanswer>
<operation>
<opertype>search</opertype>
<searchfilter>(samaccountname=example)</searchfilter>
<searchbase>ou=bcbsnc users,dc=bcbsnc,dc=com</searchbase>
<scope>2</scope>
<countlimit>0</countlimit>
<timelimit>0</timelimit>
</operation>
<searchresult>
<dn>CN=example,ou=excample,dc=example,dc=com</dn>
<returnedattr>1</returnedattr>
<attribute>
<attributename>displayName</attributename>
<attributevalue>John Smith</attributevalue>
</attribute>
</searchresult>
</operation>
<responsecode>0</responsecode>
<responsemessage>Success</responsemessage>
</ldapanswer>

Severity: minor
OS: Windows XP

Duplicates:

@asfimport
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Dolf Smits (migrated from Bugzilla):
This is a patch, made against the svn trunk from 3 days ago.
It will solve this problem, has some extra features added and some changes to
the userInterface.
a patch for the manulas is still to be made :-(

Created attachment ldap_ext_patch: Patch for problem, with other enhancements

@asfimport
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Sebb (migrated from Bugzilla):
Thanks very much!

By the way, SVN trunk is rather out of date - 2.2 is built from branch/rel-2-2 -
or is that what you meant?

But I expect the patch can be made to work against the branch anyway.

@asfimport
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Peter Lambrechtsen (migrated from Bugzilla):
*** #1799 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

@asfimport
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Sebb (migrated from Bugzilla):
The patches did not seem to work properly, even against the revision quoted in
them; however I think it has all now been committed OK.

Please try the nightly build (any after r516970)

[Note that I combined the bind & sbind panels, as sbind needed all the bind
variables anyway]

@asfimport
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Sebb (migrated from Bugzilla):
No problems reported, so assuming fixed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant