Bug 693520
Summary: | matching rules do not inherit from superior attribute type | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | Rich Megginson <rmeggins> |
Component: | 389-ds-base | Assignee: | Rich Megginson <rmeggins> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Chandrasekar Kannan <ckannan> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | high | ||
Version: | 6.1 | CC: | amsharma, benl, dpal, jgalipea, kevinu |
Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | screened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 389-ds-base-1.2.8.0-2.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | 693503 | Environment: | |
Last Closed: | 2011-05-19 12:43:04 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 693503 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 639035, 656390 |
Description
Rich Megginson
2011-04-04 21:12:07 UTC
Hi Rich, Please help me with the verification steps. Thanks, Amita 1) find or create an attributetype that has SYNTAX and at least one matching rule (EQUALITY ORDERING or SUBSTRING) 2) find or create an attributetype that has as the SUP the attribute from step 1) - this attribute type should not specify SYNTAX or any matching rule 3) if you search the schema via LDAP (ldapsearch ... -s base -b "cn=schema" 'objectclass=*' attributetypes) you should see the attribute type from step 2 with SYNTAX and matching rules from the SUP Thanks Rich. Executed below steps :
1. create an attributetype that has SYNTAX and at least one matching
rule (EQUALITY ORDERING or SUBSTRING)
[root@rheltest slapd-rheltest]# ldapmodify -x -h localhost -p 1389 -D "cn=directory manager" -w Secret123 -v << EOF
> dn: cn=schema
> changetype: modify
> add: attributetypes
> attributetypes: ( 1.2.3.4.5.6.1 NAME 'dateofbirth' DESC 'For employee birthdays' EQUALITY integerMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUED X-ORIGIN 'Example defined')
> EOF
ldap_initialize( ldap://localhost:1389 )
add attributetypes:
( 1.2.3.4.5.6.1 NAME 'dateofbirth' DESC 'For employee birthdays' EQUALITY integerMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUED X-ORIGIN 'Example defined')
modifying entry "cn=schema"
modify complete
2. create an attributetype that has as the SUP the attribute from step
1) - this attribute type should not specify SYNTAX or any matching rule
ldapmodify -x -h localhost -p 1389 -D "cn=directory manager" -w Secret123 -v << EOF
dn: cn=schema
changetype: modify
add: attributetypes
attributeTypes:( 2.16.840.1.113730.3.8.3.3 NAME 'enrolledBy' DESC 'DN of administrator who performed manual enrollment of the host' SUP dateofbirth X-ORIGIN 'IPA V2' )
EOF
ldap_initialize( ldap://localhost:1389 )
add attributeTypes:
( 2.16.840.1.113730.3.8.3.3 NAME 'enrolledBy' DESC 'DN of administrator who performed manual enrollment of the host' SUP dateofbirth X-ORIGIN 'IPA V2' )
modifying entry "cn=schema"
modify complete
3. if you search the schema via LDAP (ldapsearch ... -s base -b "cn=schema"
'objectclass=*' attributetypes) you should see the attribute type from step 2
with SYNTAX and matching rules from the SUP
ldapsearch -x -h localhost -p 1389 -D "cn=Directory Manager" -w Secret123 -s base -b "cn=schema" 'objectclass=*' attributetypes
attributetypes: ( 2.16.840.1.113730.3.8.3.3 NAME 'enrolledBy' DESC 'DN of admi
nistrator who performed manual enrollment of the host' SUP dateofbirth EQUALI
TY integerMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 X-ORIGIN ( 'IPA V2' 'use
r defined' ) )
Bug is VERIFIED but one observation in case I will modify the First Attribute type using ldapmodify say I will add some new matching rule to the first attribute type then the changes are not reflecting to the Second attribute type which is using first as SUP. Please share your opinion about it?
(In reply to comment #6) > Bug is VERIFIED but one observation in case I will modify the First Attribute > type using ldapmodify say I will add some new matching rule to the first > attribute type then the changes are not reflecting to the Second attribute type > which is using first as SUP. Please share your opinion about it? That's not currently supported. Ok, thanks Rich. Marking the bug as VERIFIED. An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2011-0533.html |