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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 using DOMAIN COMPONENT for AD DS certificates #75
Allow using DOMAIN COMPONENT for AD DS certificates #75
Changes from all commits
6080ea5
7e955fa
defd072
b6a176c
38c6e4f
be00b58
bad161d
082ccd3
83619b2
d4fa7b6
0c9dec8
a0b8bc4
446b050
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This function here: I think I understand what your updated comment means to express, but the code is far from obvious. And I'm frankly surprised that the old code does not respect sort stability.
subject[::-1]
is just reversing the list. At least a simple test did that. If yes, then use the more obviousreversed()
instead.if
check do?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.
See comment below. I'm not sure how it does its magic exactly anymore, I just know it reliably yields the desired results.
Exemplary test cases as mentioned below:
Let me know if you feel comfortable with the sort function so we can move forward. Halting any further effort until then.
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.
Now that's behavior that I don't understand: In testcase two,
loc
is the last DC in the input and ends up as first element.In the third test case,
loc
is the first DC, and still ends up as last. Is that supposed to be?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.
Yes. In the first and second test case, the user input the subject with
CN
being the first element – this is a classic case of assuming the hierarchy goes from left-to-right withCN
being the lowest weighted element.In test case three, we're looking at the opposite. The user's hierarchical input is correct as per
X509
withCN
being the last element.In all three test cases the user respect the general hierarchical-structure, albeit in a reversed manner.