Re: Antw: Re: [Q] amendments to schemes existent

2017-10-21 Thread Zeus Panchenko
Andrew Findlay wrote: > You could try using the extended search filter syntax: > > (dhcpOption:caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch:=boot*) > > See RFC4515 for more details. In practice you will probably want to create a I tried and failed ... where did I mistake?

Re: Antw: Re: [Q] amendments to schemes existent

2017-10-21 Thread Zeus Panchenko
Andrew Findlay wrote: > Try this: > (authorizedService:caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch:=m...@hh001.umi) now there is no error message, though the result is still empty alas ... # base

Re: Antw: Re: [Q] amendments to schemes existent

2017-10-21 Thread Zeus Panchenko
Ulrich Windl wrote: > But you are basically changing the semantics of attribute authorizedService: > Before "*" was literal, after it is magic (substring match). > > The discussion on which variant is more useful is a different issue ;-) for *my* flow, the

Re: Antw: Re: [Q] amendments to schemes existent

2017-10-20 Thread Andrew Findlay
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 01:08:01PM +0300, Zeus Panchenko wrote: > 1. search works with filter: (authorizedService=mail@hh001.umidb) >(and without index it returns empty result) That is odd. Th eindex should only be a performance thing - it should not change the results at all. You need to be

Re: Antw: Re: [Q] amendments to schemes existent

2017-10-19 Thread Andrew Findlay
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:02:55PM +0300, Zeus Panchenko wrote: > is there other way to get originally SUBSTR-less attributes to be > matchable by substring, except hacking the scheme? You could try using the extended search filter syntax: (dhcpOption:caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch:=boot*)

Re: [Q] amendments to schemes existent

2017-10-19 Thread Zeus Panchenko
thank you for reply Andrew Findlay wrote: > You should not change the definitions of standard attributes or > objectclasses. I remember that, though I wasn't able to get that working without patching ... > That does not stop you from setting up an index for

Re: [Q] amendments to schemes existent

2017-10-18 Thread Andrew Findlay
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:35:56PM +0300, Zeus Panchenko wrote: > I'm wondering of search possibility lack for some attributes > > my question is: is it correct/good/sane/e.t.c. to patch them this > way? is there other way to get those attributes searchable? You should not change the

[Q] amendments to schemes existent

2017-10-04 Thread Zeus Panchenko
greetings, I'm wondering of search possibility lack for some attributes my question is: is it correct/good/sane/e.t.c. to patch them this way? is there other way to get those attributes searchable? for example I have to patch some schemes like this: ---[ PATCH SAMPLES START