Bug 1630513
| Summary: | Customer requesting -y option for ds-replcheck | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Dave <dsimes> | |
| Component: | 389-ds-base | Assignee: | mreynolds | |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | RHDS QE <ds-qe-bugs> | |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | ||
| Priority: | high | |||
| Version: | 7.5 | CC: | aadhikar, bsmejkal, cpelland, lkrispen, nkinder, pasik, rmeggins, spichugi, tbordaz, vashirov | |
| Target Milestone: | rc | |||
| Target Release: | 7.7 | |||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
| OS: | Linux | |||
| Whiteboard: | ||||
| Fixed In Version: | 389-ds-base-1.3.9.1-5.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: |
Cause: Trying to read password from a file
Consequence: There is no option to do so
Fix: Add a "-y" option to specify a password file
Result: There si option to use a password file
|
Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | ||||
| : | 1653469 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2019-08-06 12:58:51 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: | ||||
| Bug Depends On: | ||||
| Bug Blocks: | 1653469 | |||
|
Description
Dave
2018-09-18 19:51:47 UTC
We should also add option to enter it at command line(stdin) (In reply to mreynolds from comment #2) > We should also add option to enter it at command line(stdin) -W & -w options exist, and we currently use these.. I think we are good other than the -y Addressing this in https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/50028 Build tested:
389-ds-base-1.3.9.1-4.el7.x86_64
1) # ds-replcheck -h
usage: ds-replcheck [-h] [-v] [-o FILE] [-D BINDDN] [-w BINDPW] [-W]
[-y PASS_FILE] [-m MURL] [-r RURL] [-b SUFFIX] [-l LAG]
[-c] [-Z CERTDIR] [-i IGNORE] [-p PAGESIZE] [-M MLDIF]
[-R RLDIF]
Replication Comparison Tool (v1.4). This script can be used to compare two
replicas to see if they are in sync.
optional arguments:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
-v, --verbose Verbose output
-o FILE, --outfile FILE
The output file
-D BINDDN, --binddn BINDDN
The Bind DN
-w BINDPW, --bindpw BINDPW
The Bind password
-W, --prompt Prompt for the bind password
-y PASS_FILE, --pass-file PASS_FILE
A text file contained the clear text password for the
bind dn
-m MURL, --master_url MURL
The LDAP URL for the Master server (REQUIRED)
-r RURL, --replica_url RURL
The LDAP URL for the Replica server (REQUIRED)
-b SUFFIX, --basedn SUFFIX
Replicated suffix (REQUIRED)
-l LAG, --lagtime LAG
The amount of time to ignore inconsistencies (default
300 seconds)
-c, --conflicts Display verbose conflict information
-Z CERTDIR, --certdir CERTDIR
The certificate database directory for secure
connections
-i IGNORE, --ignore IGNORE
Comma separated list of attributes to ignore
-p PAGESIZE, --pagesize PAGESIZE
The paged result grouping size (default 500 entries)
-M MLDIF, --mldif MLDIF
Master LDIF file (offline mode)
-R RLDIF, --rldif RLDIF
Replica LDIF file (offline mode)
2) The -y option is listed but if I try it in command:
# ds-replcheck -D "cn=Directory Manager" -y pass.txt -m ldap://server.example.com:389 -r ldap://server2.example.com:389 -b "dc=example,dc=com"
then I get:
-------> Missing required options for online mode!
If I use -w or -W option for password, then the above command works.
Marking as failedQA
Build tested: 389-ds-base-1.3.9.1-5.el7.x86_64 # ds-replcheck -D "cn=Directory Manager" -y pass.txt -m ldap://server.example.com:389 -r ldap://server2.example.com:389 -b "dc=example,dc=com" Performing online report... Connecting to servers... Gathering Master's RUV... ... ... The connection is successful. Marking as VERIFIED. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:2152 |