[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 0001 User Life Cycle: create containers and scoping DS plugins

[thierry bordaz]

On 08/13/2014 04:48 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 08/08/2014 09:24 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The attached patch is a first patch related to 'User Life Cycle'
>> (https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3813)
>>
>> It creates 'Stage' and 'Delete' containers and configure DS plugin to
>> scope only 'Active' container or exclude 'Stage'/'Delete'
>
> Hello,
>
> The .ldif files are copied only during initial installation. When 
> upgrading to a version with this patch, changes in .ldif files are not 
> applied.
>
> So all updates need to be in .update files. For example, for DNA 
> plugin configuration you would need something like this in an .update 
> file:
>
> dn: cn=Posix IDs,cn=Distributed Numeric Assignment 
> Plugin,cn=plugins,cn=config
> remove:dnaScope: "$SUFFIX"
> add:dnaScope: "cn=accounts,$SUFFIX"
>
>
> .update files, on the other hand, are applied both on installation and 
> on upgrade. To avoid duplication you can put whole entries in .update 
> and delete them from the .ldif, provided the entries always end up 
> being created in a correct order.

Hello Petr,

    Thanks you very much for your review. I understand that the fix does
    not work in upgrade and I will change it following your recommendation.
    I think that adding entries with the .update syntax should be
    similar to what is in 55-pbacmemberof.update for example.

>
>
> Patch submission technicalities:
> Please don't add the "Reviewed by" tag to the commit message, it's 
> added when pushing. The other tags are not used FreeIPA. (What's a 
> "Flag Day"?)
> When you send more patches that depend on each other, either attach 
> them all to one e-mail, or explicitly say what each patch depends on.
>
    That is correct I used a review template that was for 389-ds and I
    will change it. 'Flag Day' was part of 389-DS template, it was a
    flag to inform if the fix had a wide impact (things needing to be
    ported/recompile).
    I split ULC fix into several logical sub fixes and you are right
    they are all related even if for example 0002 does not depend on 0001.
    Do you want I resend patch 0003 with the statement it relies on 0001
    (and with the correct commit message ?).

    thanks
    thierry


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20140813/08f318b8/attachment.htm>