Hide Forgot
Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ipa-server-2.1.3-8.el6.x86_64 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. [root@decepticons ~]# ipa netgroup-add test Description: test --------------------- Added netgroup "test" --------------------- Netgroup name: test Description: test NIS domain name: lab.eng.pnq.redhat.com IPA unique ID: c6354608-05dc-11e1-90bc-525400f56e2e 2. [root@decepticons ~]# ipa hostgroup-add test Description: test ipa: ERROR: netgroup with name "test" already exists. Hostgroups and netgroups share a common namespace [root@decepticons ~]# 3. [root@decepticons ~]# ipa hostgroup-add test2 Description: test2 ----------------------- Added hostgroup "test2" ----------------------- Host-group: test2 Description: test2 4. [root@decepticons ~]# ipa netgroup-add test2 Actual results: [root@decepticons ~]# ipa netgroup-add test2 Description: test2 ipa: ERROR: netgroup with name "test2" already exists [root@decepticons ~]# Expected results: [root@decepticons ~]# ipa netgroup-add test2 Description: test2 ipa: ERROR: netgroup with name "test2" already exists. Hostgroups and netgroups share a common namespace. [root@decepticons ~]# Additional info:
The issue here wasn't adding a conflicting name though. In this case the only problem is that there is a duplicate netgroup so I think the error is accurate. Otherwise you could be sent on a wild goose chase looking for a hostgroup named test2.
I think the confusion is because I am repeating the same command in "Actual results". Let me put it this way: [root@decepticons ~]# ipa hostgroup-add test2 Description: test2 ----------------------- Added hostgroup "test2" ----------------------- Host-group: test2 Description: test2 [root@decepticons ~]# ipa netgroup-add test2 Description: test2 ipa: ERROR: netgroup with name "test2" already exists [root@decepticons ~]# so here I expected "ipa: ERROR: netgroup with name "test2" already exists. Hostgroups and netgroups share a common namespace."
I think you have a point. We could find out if the colliding netgroup was created separately via netgroup-add or as a managed object of a hostgroup and display error message based on this information. We could check for objectclass: mepManagedEntry to distinguish these situations: 1) foo is a managed entry of a foo hostgroup # ipa netgroup-show --all --raw foo dn: cn=foo,cn=ng,cn=alt,dc=idm,dc=lab,dc=bos,dc=redhat,dc=com cn: foo description: ipaNetgroup foo nisdomainname: idm.lab.bos.redhat.com ipauniqueid: 69858e34-0917-11e1-8cce-00163e2d6a08 memberhost: cn=foo,cn=hostgroups,cn=accounts,dc=idm,dc=lab,dc=bos,dc=redhat,dc=com mepmanagedby: cn=foo,cn=hostgroups,cn=accounts,dc=idm,dc=lab,dc=bos,dc=redhat,dc=com objectclass: ipanisnetgroup objectclass: ipaobject objectclass: mepManagedEntry objectclass: ipaAssociation objectclass: top 2) Bar is a pure netgroup [root@vm-134 ~]# ipa netgroup-show --all --raw bar dn: ipauniqueid=717c04e2-0917-11e1-b2f0-00163e2d6a08,cn=ng,cn=alt,dc=idm,dc=lab,dc=bos,dc=redhat,dc=com cn: bar description: foo nisdomainname: idm.lab.bos.redhat.com ipauniqueid: 717c04e2-0917-11e1-b2f0-00163e2d6a08 objectclass: ipaobject objectclass: ipaassociation objectclass: ipanisnetgroup
Upstream ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/2069
Fixed upstream: master: https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/changeset/2a667d94ec1ad8834f79e12b6e55745deca1cd4d ipa-2-2: https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/changeset/16d17f48dfc81f47d91696d8678699f88f10ae4c
Verified. Version :: ipa-server-2.2.0-4.el6.x86_64 Automated Test Results :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: [ LOG ] :: netgroup_bz_750984: Inconsistency in error message while adding a duplicate netgroup :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: [ PASS ] :: Running 'ipa hostgroup-add netgroup_bz_750984 --desc=netgroup_bz_750984' :: [ PASS ] :: Running 'ipa netgroup-add netgroup_bz_750984 --desc=netgroup_bz_750984 > /netgroup_bz_750984.28774.out 2>&1' :: [ PASS ] :: BZ 750984 not found. :: [ PASS ] :: Running 'ipa hostgroup-del netgroup_bz_750984' :: [ PASS ] :: Running 'ipa netgroup-add netgroup_bz_750984 --desc=netgroup_bz_750984' :: [ PASS ] :: Running 'ipa hostgroup-add netgroup_bz_750984 --desc=netgroup_bz_750984 > /netgroup_bz_750984.28774.out 2>&1' :: [ PASS ] :: BZ 750984 not found. :: [ PASS ] :: Running 'ipa netgroup-del netgroup_bz_750984' :: [ LOG ] :: Duration: 29s :: [ LOG ] :: Assertions: 8 good, 0 bad :: [ PASS ] :: RESULT: netgroup_bz_750984: Inconsistency in error message while adding a duplicate netgroup Manual Test Results :: [root@hp-xw6600-01 ipa-netgroup-cli]# ipa hostgroup-add netgroup_bz_750984 --desc=netgroup_bz_750984 ------------------------------------ Added hostgroup "netgroup_bz_750984" ------------------------------------ Host-group: netgroup_bz_750984 Description: netgroup_bz_750984 [root@hp-xw6600-01 ipa-netgroup-cli]# ipa netgroup-add netgroup_bz_750984 --desc=netgroup_bz_750984 ipa: ERROR: hostgroup with name "netgroup_bz_750984" already exists. Hostgroups and netgroups share a common namespace [root@hp-xw6600-01 ipa-netgroup-cli]# ipa netgroup-add netgroup_bz_750984 --desc=netgroup_bz_750984 ----------------------------------- Added netgroup "netgroup_bz_750984" ----------------------------------- Netgroup name: netgroup_bz_750984 Description: netgroup_bz_750984 NIS domain name: testrelm.com IPA unique ID: 5b37b7cc-6fb9-11e1-8903-0019bbea4c2b [root@hp-xw6600-01 ipa-netgroup-cli]# ipa hostgroup-add netgroup_bz_750984 --desc=netgroup_bz_750984 ipa: ERROR: netgroup with name "netgroup_bz_750984" already exists. Hostgroups and netgroups share a common namespace
Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team. New Contents: No documentation needed.
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. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0819.html