Howard, [email protected] schrieb (14.03.2013 15:14 Uhr): > [email protected] wrote:
>> I think we had situations like this before... >> >> How about having a test for this? >> What is the test which is nearest to this situation where a test could >> be based on? > > test045. Feel free to submit patches for this test script. If I'm not mistaken, - in lines 262-264 the consumer is stopped - in lines 266-284 changes are made to the provider - in lines 286-294 the consumer is started again. But the changes do - delete cn=Rosco P. Coltrane, ou=Retired, ou=People, dc=example,dc=com (lines 269-270) - modify cn=Bjorn Jensen, ou=Information Technology Division, ou=People, dc=example,dc=com (lines 272-275) - add cn=Rosco P. Coltrane, ou=Retired, ou=People, dc=example,dc=com _again_ (lines 277-282) So while the consumer is down Coltrane is deleted and added again. We miss a scenario where an object is still deleted, when the consumer is back again. There is no object, which is not used later on, so we should add a new object first: (before line 239) dn: cn=Invisible Man, ou=Information Technology Division, ou=People, dc=example,dc=com changetype: add objectclass: OpenLDAPperson cn: Invisible Man sn: Man uid: invisibleman description: Ghost And delete the object while the consumer is down: (before line 284) dn: cn=Invisible Man, ou=Information Technology Division, ou=People, dc=example,dc=com changetype: delete That would do, I think. Sorry for not patching it myself, I'm not too familiar with it. Marc
