Bug 1615163

Summary:	Server side search with matching rules returns non-sorted results
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Reporter:	Viktor Ashirov <vashirov>
Component:	389-ds-base	Assignee:	mreynolds
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	RHDS QE <ds-qe-bugs>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	8.0	CC:	dpal, nkinder, pasik, spichugi, tbordaz, vashirov
Target Milestone:	pre-dev-freeze
Target Release:	8.2
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-01-08 07:34:18 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Viktor Ashirov 2018-08-12 21:18:22 UTC

Description of problem:
If matching rule is used for server side search, it returnes non-sorted results.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-10.el7.x86_64

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install IPA and add some entries
2. Run ldapsearch with sss control and matching rule
3.

Actual results:
[root@server ds]# ldapsearch -xLLL -D cn=Directory\ Manager -w Secret123 -b cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=ipa,dc=test -E sss=uid:2.5.13.3 "(uid=tuser*)" uid | grep uid:
uid: tuser2
uid: tuser3
uid: tuser
[root@server ds]# ldapsearch -xLLL -D cn=Directory\ Manager -w Secret123 -b cn=users,cn=accounts,dc=ipa,dc=test -E sss=-uid:2.5.13.3 "(uid=tuser*)" uid | grep uid:
uid: tuser2
uid: tuser3
uid: tuser


Expected results:
Results should be sorted.

Additional info:
See also https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49509
and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607078

Comment 8 RHEL Program Management 2021-01-08 07:34:18 UTC

After evaluating this issue, there are no plans to address it further or fix it in an upcoming release.  Therefore, it is being closed.  If plans change such that this issue will be fixed in an upcoming release, then the bug can be reopened.