directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Emmanuel Lecharny (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DIRSERVER-766) uniqueMember attribute compare does not seem to work properly (uniqueMemberMatch is not implemented?)
Date Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:53:25 GMT
    [ ] 
Emmanuel Lecharny commented on DIRSERVER-766:

After a further investigation, here what I found :
- We are not checking the syntax of attributes. Here, uniqueMember attribute type is NameAndOptionalUid,
which does not exist in ADS (we are currently adding them in 1.5)
- As we don't check those syntax, we don't know that they are DN and should be transformed
with respect to DN representation (RFC 4514)
- thus, we compare them as string, not as DN
- and as a DN is composed of multiple attributes, whith each one having its own syntax, this
lead us to have big problem finding entries with a uniqueMember not having the same value
than the one which as created.

In one world : Damn !

> uniqueMember attribute compare does not seem to work properly (uniqueMemberMatch is not
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: DIRSERVER-766
>                 URL:
>             Project: Directory ApacheDS
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 1.0
>         Environment: Windows XP SP2, Java 1.5.06
>            Reporter: Kirill Kovalenko
>         Assigned To: Emmanuel Lecharny
>         Attachments: example.ldif
> When it comes to search attributes with syntax, like  uniqueMember,
the server does not seem to work properly. For example, in my environment, the (uniqueMember=uid=kvaughan,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com)
search filter brings the search result while (uniqueMember=uid=kvaughan, ou=People, dc=example,
dc=com) does not. The only difference here is spaces between RDN components in the search
filter value. Server should normalize uniqueMember values before compare takes place. 

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
For more information on JIRA, see:


View raw message