-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 96
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
[JENKINS-55813] Improve analysis of AD attributes #96
Open
jvz
wants to merge
12
commits into
jenkinsci:master
Choose a base branch
from
jvz:JENKINS-55813-redo
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
56e4cf5
Revert "Merge pull request #94 from jvz/revert-JENKINS-55813"
jvz 9f1e157
Merge branch 'master' into JENKINS-55813-redo
jvz 896fb4a
[JENKINS-55813] Check user validity attributes
jvz 8435ad4
Fix copyright for new file
jvz b625d8e
Narrow access scope
jvz c953f64
Fix handling of account does not expire psuedo date
jvz 771854f
Fix NPE when isStartTls is null
jvz 0877f45
Re-use feature flag from core
jvz e785d36
Use more informative exceptions in user detail checks
jvz fcd9d55
Increase log size limit
jvz 642c31e
Separate test to avoid flaky test failures
jvz bfbd80d
Disable windows docker tests
jvz File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm no AD admin, but theoretically, these two LDAP filters can be combined into one like so:
(&(objectCategory=user)(|(userPrincipalName={0})(sAMAccountName={0})))
No idea how that would affect or potentially destroy performance of LDAP indices that may be set up.