RE: [LDAPsh-devel] Re: [LDAPsh-cvs] ldapsh ldapsh,1.20.8.1,1.20.8.2

[Rafael C. <Raf...@li...>]

Hi James,

1) Before commiting the patch, I did 2 tests : a) adding one new =
attribute b) adding one new value to an existing attribute.
   Maybe I did something wrong, but I noticed that the 1st test said =
that the entry didn't changed.
   If you implemented the behaviour, this is probably a worng test I =
made and I will remove the comment.
   I will do the test on my box at office next week!

2) You're right, the comment should be changed to reflect the new logic

3) You're patch to enhanced redirection seems quite good. I was =
reviewing it on friday to check that there was no side effects. I will =
probably commit these changes next week also.
This is how it works until now:

a. "ls"             =3D> output to STDOUT
b. "ls | less"      =3D> redirects "ls" result into "less"
c. "redir '>/tmp/file.out'; ls; csv $ENTRIES"   =3D> "ls" and "csv" =
output is redirected to "/tmp/file.out" (also any other output after =
those commands until a "redir" without arguments is executed.
d. "redir"  =3D> any previous redirection is cleared
e. "redir '| sed -n "/John/p"'  =3D> Commands output will be redirectet =
to the "sed" command until a "redir" without arguments is executed.

Promised I take a look at it next week.

Rafael



-----Original Message-----
From: James Devenish [mailto:j-d...@us...]=20
Sent: samedi, 30 ao=FBt 2003 06:24
To: lda...@li...
Subject: [LDAPsh-devel] Re: [LDAPsh-cvs] ldapsh ldapsh,1.20.8.1,1.20.8.2


Hi,

In message <E19...@sc...>
on Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:35:27PM -0700, =
rco...@us... wrote:
> *** ldapsh	27 Jul 2003 07:47:25 -0000	1.20.8.1
> --- ldapsh	28 Aug 2003 22:35:25 -0000	1.20.8.2
> ***************
> *** 1591,1594 ****
> --- 1591,1596 ----
>   the search results. Any changes can be viewed using =
L<changes|changes> and will need to
>   be committed using L<commit|commit>.
> + BUG (TODO): If you add an attribute to an entry (so, if you add a=20
> + value to an attribute that hadn't previously a value), it will not=20
> + be detected. We should do a two-way check.

I don't quite understand this comment. Do you have any test cases that =
exhibit incorrect behaviour? The command was designed to detect new =
attributes, and new values for existing attributes, without using a =
two-way check. The task that is not possible is the addition of new =
entries (i.e. new DNs) or removal of existing entries.

In fact...does ldapsh provide *any* commands to add or delete entries =
(other than "cp")? Currently, the "add" command is for attributes (which =
is needed more often than the ability to add entries, I think). Perhaps =
"new" (synonym: "create") and "remove" (synonym: "rm") could be the =
command names for adding and deleting entries? Plus "rename" (synonyms: =
"mv" and "move") for modifying DNs?

> ! 		unless ($ldif->error() or $examined >=3D scalar(@$entries)) {
>   			print STDERR "Warning: some entries were absent from the edited =
file.\n\n";
>   		}

I think the message needs to be changed to reflect the new logic. =
Perhaps "Warning: some edited entries were added, removed, or =
unreadable.\n\n"?

PS. Also, I would be glad if someone could comment on my "enhanced =
redirection" patch -- have I improved redirection or have I =
misunderstood the pre-existing redirection features? I would like to be =
able to do
    help all;|less
within the shell.




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________
LDAPsh-devel mailing list
LDA...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ldapsh-devel