Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Original comment by jaim...@gmail.com
on 19 Feb 2014 at 12:20
Hi,
I don't think it's a good idea to create a new filter, when the difference
between both is simply the amount of attributes you can get. I believe the best
approach here is to fix the module, in a backwards-compatible way, as
implemented in r3371. I've kept your syntax for the configuration, but inverted
$key and $value. It works for me, but please check it out and tell me if you
find anything not working.
Original comment by jaim...@gmail.com
on 20 Feb 2014 at 8:41
I'm having a problem with duplicate attribute values. I made a patch that does
not add LDAP attribute values that are already present.
Original comment by yorndej...@gmail.com
on 21 Feb 2014 at 12:29
Attachments:
Hi again,
I've been discussing this with Olav. The thing is, though probably it doesn't
make sense to have duplicate values for an attribute, the specs don't forbid
it, and we might be missing some corner use-cases for them. There's also the
question of what to do when using this filter as sort of an attribute
authority. If we want this attribute source to have priority over the
attributes gathered during the authentication step, we should have a different
policy, then. In the end, we think there could be three different policies:
- add: to add a value blindly. Could derive in duplicates.
- merge: join "old" and "new" attributes, avoiding duplicates.
- replace the "old" values with the "new" ones.
I've implemented this and committed in r3375. As far as I can tell, it works
fine. I've also updated the documentation accordingly.
Hope this fills your needs.
Original comment by jaim...@gmail.com
on 24 Feb 2014 at 12:32
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
yorndej...@gmail.com
on 29 Jan 2014 at 11:08Attachments: