<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/12/2015 08:00 PM, William Brown
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1439424007.20693.23.camel@blackhats.net.au"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 07:49 +0930, William wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I hope this demonstrates how I want to tie together the other
contributions I
have made into tools, but also making it possible to test other
aspects of
389ds.
Comments and advice welcome.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Hi William,
This looks good to me, it's definitely a good start. I see no reason
not to push the patch once you think it's ready and polished enough.
Don't forget to add the license text to new files. <This actually
needs
to be done for many of the files in lib389 - I'll open a ticket for
that>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Thanks! I think that the main piece of polish is the helper.py library
that backs the cli tools to make them a bit easier to write. I'll make
this a bit nicer now and send this back in for another review.
Thanks for your time,
Sincerely,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Here is a slightly more polished CliTools helper, and the addition of a more
"interesting" command line tool example of an attribute query tool. You give it
an attribute type and it will provide a list of object classes that Must or May
take that attribute. I have found this a very useful tool in my work place where
we have a complex custom schema, so it's great to know what objectclass to put
on objects when you need to put certain attributes on them.</pre>
</blockquote>
This will be very useful. Things like missing objectclasses for
"memberOf", and such things, always seem to pop up, so this can
definitely be used on that front.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1439424007.20693.23.camel@blackhats.net.au"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The biggest outstanding part for me now is how to best format the output of the
tool. Should I use the same logging tool as lib389? Or print things out in the
current form? Or something else. </pre>
</blockquote>
I "think" the current form is fine, the lib389 logging is more for
how the tool is "running" (for troubleshooting, etc), and not what
the tool should be "doing". Does that make sense :-) Perhaps
others on this list might have a different opinion.<br>
<br>
I'll give this some time, and if no one has any concerns/comments
I'll push the patch.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Mark<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1439424007.20693.23.camel@blackhats.net.au"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Sincerely,
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">--
389-devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>