empty ldapmodify refused with slapo-unique

[Geert Hendrickx]

Content preview: When slapo-unique constraints are in effect, it seems empty
updates are no longer allowed: > $ ldapmodify -x -h localhost -D cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=com
-w secret > dn: cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com > changetype: modify > > modifying
entry "cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com" > ldap_modify: Invalid syntax (21) >
additional info: unique_modify() got null op.orm_modlist [...]

Content analysis details: (-1.8 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information.
[URIs: hendrickx.be]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

When slapo-unique constraints are in effect, it seems empty updates are

$ ldapmodify -x -h localhost -D cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=com -w secret
dn: cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com
changetype: modify
modifying entry "cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com"
ldap_modify: Invalid syntax (21)
additional info: unique_modify() got null op.orm_modlist

Why is this considered invalid syntax? Without slapo-unique constraint,
empty updates like these are accepted.


Geert

[Geert Hendrickx]

Post by Geert Hendrickx
When slapo-unique constraints are in effect, it seems empty updates are
no longer allowed: > > > $ ldapmodify -x -h localhost -D cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=com

-w secret > > dn: cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com > > changetype: modify > >

Post by Geert Hendrickx

modifying entry "cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com" > > ldap_modify: Invalid

syntax (21) > > additional info: unique_modify() got null op.orm_modlist

Post by Geert Hendrickx

Why is this considered invalid syntax? Without slapo-unique constraint,

empty updates like these are accepted. [...]

Content analysis details: (-1.8 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to DNSWL
was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information.
[178.21.118.64 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information.
[URIs: hendrickx.be]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

Post by Geert Hendrickx
When slapo-unique constraints are in effect, it seems empty updates are

$ ldapmodify -x -h localhost -D cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=com -w secret
dn: cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com
changetype: modify
modifying entry "cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com"
ldap_modify: Invalid syntax (21)
additional info: unique_modify() got null op.orm_modlist

Why is this considered invalid syntax? Without slapo-unique constraint,
empty updates like these are accepted.

Anyone?


Geert

[Quanah Gibson-Mount]

Content preview: --On Thursday, October 08, 2015 6:23 PM +0200 Geert Hendrickx
<***@hendrickx.be> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 17:14:56 +0200, Geert
Hendrickx wrote: >> When slapo-unique constraints are in effect, it seems
empty updates are >> no longer allowed: >> >> > $ ldapmodify -x -h localhost
-D cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=com -w >> > secret dn: cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com

Post by Geert Hendrickx

changetype: modify >> > >> > modifying entry "cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com"
ldap_modify: Invalid syntax (21) >> > additional info: unique_modify()

got null op.orm_modlist >> >> >> Why is this considered invalid syntax? Without
slapo-unique constraint, >> empty updates like these are accepted. > > >

Anyone? [...]

Content analysis details: (-2.0 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to DNSWL
was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information.
[162.209.122.184 listed in list.dnswl.org]
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information.
[URIs: zimbra.com]
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
[score: 0.0000]
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

--On Thursday, October 08, 2015 6:23 PM +0200 Geert Hendrickx

Post by Geert Hendrickx
When slapo-unique constraints are in effect, it seems empty updates are

$ ldapmodify -x -h localhost -D cn=Manager,dc=my-domain,dc=com -w
secret dn: cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com
changetype: modify
modifying entry "cn=test1,dc=my-domain,dc=com"
ldap_modify: Invalid syntax (21)
additional info: unique_modify() got null op.orm_modlist

Why is this considered invalid syntax? Without slapo-unique constraint,
empty updates like these are accepted.

Anyone?

I'd suggest you file an ITS.

--Quanah


--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Platform Architect
Zimbra, Inc.
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration