[389-users] Complex search filter doesnt work properly
Rich Megginson
rmeggins at redhat.com
Wed Aug 15 17:26:05 UTC 2012
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*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20120815/64fcf438/attachment.html>
More information about the 389-users
mailing list