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

Missing documentation for ldap.cache-ttl property in presto-password-authenticators #12597

Open
armaseg opened this issue Apr 5, 2019 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #12598
Open

Missing documentation for ldap.cache-ttl property in presto-password-authenticators #12597

armaseg opened this issue Apr 5, 2019 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #12598
Labels

Comments

@armaseg
Copy link

armaseg commented Apr 5, 2019

Hi All,

I noticed that the ldap.cache-ttl property in presto-password-authenticators is not documented. It can be a really painful if you are playing with different users/passwords on LDAP and you don't know that there is a cache.

Thanks!

@armaseg
Copy link
Author

armaseg commented Oct 15, 2019

PR #12598 was closed, but changes were not merged. We still need to merge this PR

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 3, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity in the last 2 years. If you feel that this issue is important, just comment and the stale tag will be removed; otherwise it will be closed in 7 days. This is an attempt to ensure that our open issues remain valuable and relevant so that we can keep track of what needs to be done and prioritize the right things.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Mar 3, 2022
@armaseg
Copy link
Author

armaseg commented Mar 3, 2022

Issue is important and fixes are already done on the PR linked to the issue. Only task required is to merge

@stale stale bot removed the stale label Mar 3, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Status: 📋 Prioritized Backlog
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants