Complex search filter doesnt work properly

[Das, Jyoti Ranjan (STSD)]

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)))     -----> Before 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))    --->  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?

Regards,
Jyoti

[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*