Re: [389-users] Complex search filter doesnt work properly

[Rich Megginson]

On 08/15/2012 11:00 AM, Das, Jyoti Ranjan (STSD) wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  Below is one of the few complex filters which don't work properly
>
>  Example:
>
>  *Filter:*  "*(&(&(uid=test1)(cn=t1 
>  est))(&(gidnumber=20))(uidnumber=2559)(&(sn=est)))"*
>
>  In this case, filter ignores *"uidnumber=2559"*  after assigning the 
>  decoders to this filter. Log details are given below how it actually 
>  behaves
>
>  *[07/Aug/2012:09:40:12 +0200]:09:40:12 +0200] get_filter -  after 
>  optimize: (&(&(uid=test1)(cn=t1
> est))(&(gidNumber=20))(uidNumber=2559)(&))
>  [07/Aug/2012 get_filter - before optimize: (&(&(uid=test1)(cn=t1 
>  est))(&(gidNumber=20))(uidNumber=2559)(&))*
>
>  *
>  [07/Aug/2012:09:40:12 +0200] index_subsys_assign_filter_decoders - 
>  before: (&(&(uid=test1)(cn=t1 est))(&(gidNumber=20))(uidNumber=25
>  59)(&(sn=est)))     ---**àBefore assigning filter decoder it looks like *
>
>  *
>  [07/Aug/2012:09:40:13 +0200] - slapi_filter_free type 0xA0
>  [07/Aug/2012:09:40:13 +0200] - slapi_filter_free type 0xA0
>  [07/Aug/2012:09:40:13 +0200] - slapi_filter_free type 0xA0*
>
>  *
>  [07/Aug/2012:09:40:13 +0200] index_subsys_assign_filter_decoders - 
>  after: (&(uid=test1)(cn=t1 est)(gidNumber=20)(sn=est))    -**à  here 
>  it missed "uidNumber=2559"
>
>  Is this a bug or its expected behavior? If yes, is there any specific 
>  reason why it ignores this particular filter?*
>  
Not sure.  What version of 389-ds-base?  Can you reproduce this with 1.2.11?
The filter is quite strange, but not illegal afaik - there are 3 
redundant & clauses.

>  **
>
>  **
>
>  **
>
>  *Regards,*
>
>  *Jyoti*
>