single valued attribute update resolution

[Ludwig Krispenz]

There are still scenarios where replication can lead to inconsistent 
states for single valued attributes, which I think has two reasons:
- for single valued attributes there are scenarios where modifications 
applied concurrently cannot be simply resolved without violating the schema
- the code to handle single valued attribute resolution is quite complex 
and has always been extended to resolve reported issues, not making it 
simpler

I tried to specify all potential scenarios which should be handled and 
what the expected consistent state should be. In parallel writing a test 
suite based on lib389 test framework to provide testcases for all 
scenarios and then test the current implementation. The doc and test 
suite can be used as a reference for a potential rework of the update 
resolution code.

Please have a look at: 
http://port389.org/wiki/Update_resolution_for_single_valued_attributes

comments, corrections, additonal requirements are welcome - the doc is 
not final :-)

Thanks,
Ludwig

[Rich Megginson]

On 04/25/2014 07:43 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> There are still scenarios where replication can lead to inconsistent 
> states for single valued attributes, which I think has two reasons:
> for single valued attributes there are scenarios where modifications
>
> applied concurrently cannot be simply resolved without violating the 
> schema
> the code to handle single valued attribute resolution is quite
>
> complex and has always been extended to resolve reported issues, not 
> making it simpler
>
> I tried to specify all potential scenarios which should be handled and 
> what the expected consistent state should be. In parallel writing a 
> test suite based on lib389 test framework to provide testcases for all 
> scenarios and then test the current implementation. The doc and test 
> suite can be used as a reference for a potential rework of the update 
> resolution code.
>
> Please have a look at: 
> http://port389.org/wiki/Update_resolution_for_single_valued_attributes
>
> comments, corrections, additonal requirements are welcome - the doc is 
> not final :-)

Very nice!
> Thanks,
> Ludwig
> -- 
> 389-devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel