You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by "Stefan Zoerner (JIRA)" <di...@incubator.apache.org> on 2005/09/05 14:32:30 UTC

[jira] Created: (DIREVE-243) Compare operation does not adhere to some matching rules

Compare operation does not adhere to some matching rules
--------------------------------------------------------

         Key: DIREVE-243
         URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIREVE-243
     Project: Directory Server
        Type: Bug
    Versions: 0.9.2    
    Reporter: Stefan Zoerner
 Assigned to: Alex Karasulu 
    Priority: Minor


The compare operation provides wrong results for some matching rules. I made tests with four rules, two of them worked, two of them not. 

caseIgnoreMatch failed (compare("Amos", "AMOS") => false)
telephoneNumberMatch failed
octetStringMatch worked
distinguishedNameMatch worked

A corresponding test case with all four cases is included to this issue. 

I changed the CompareHandler in org.apache.ldap.server.protocol to use the comparator from the AttributeTypeRegistry instead of Attribute.contains(...). This removed the problem, but I am unsure, whether this implementation is desired by design. Especially in case of multivalued attributes, the implementation is not optimal (e.g. many member values in a groupOfUniqueNames), because it seems to be necessary to loop over the attr values by the handler.




-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

[jira] Updated: (DIREVE-243) Compare operation does not adhere to some matching rules

Posted by "Stefan Zoerner (JIRA)" <di...@incubator.apache.org>.
     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIREVE-243?page=all ]

Stefan Zoerner updated DIREVE-243:
----------------------------------

    Attachment: MatchingRuleCompareTest.java

Here is my test case class for the matching rules. The telephoneNumberMatch case is probably a different story, because an adequate comparator is currently missing in the server registry anyway.

> Compare operation does not adhere to some matching rules
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DIREVE-243
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIREVE-243
>      Project: Directory Server
>         Type: Bug
>     Versions: 0.9.2
>     Reporter: Stefan Zoerner
>     Assignee: Alex Karasulu
>     Priority: Minor
>  Attachments: MatchingRuleCompareTest.java
>
> The compare operation provides wrong results for some matching rules. I made tests with four rules, two of them worked, two of them not. 
> caseIgnoreMatch failed (compare("Amos", "AMOS") => false)
> telephoneNumberMatch failed
> octetStringMatch worked
> distinguishedNameMatch worked
> A corresponding test case with all four cases is included to this issue. 
> I changed the CompareHandler in org.apache.ldap.server.protocol to use the comparator from the AttributeTypeRegistry instead of Attribute.contains(...). This removed the problem, but I am unsure, whether this implementation is desired by design. Especially in case of multivalued attributes, the implementation is not optimal (e.g. many member values in a groupOfUniqueNames), because it seems to be necessary to loop over the attr values by the handler.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

[jira] Closed: (DIREVE-243) Compare operation does not adhere to some matching rules

Posted by "Stefan Zoerner (JIRA)" <di...@incubator.apache.org>.
     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIREVE-243?page=all ]
     
Stefan Zoerner closed DIREVE-243:
---------------------------------


Verification: I have retested the server after rebuild and it works fine. The test case for the telephoneNumber comparison is still included in my protocol test suite, therefore we will not forget to implement the missing normalizer. But this is obviously not that important now. Thanks for fixing this.

> Compare operation does not adhere to some matching rules
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DIREVE-243
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIREVE-243
>      Project: Directory Server
>         Type: Bug
>     Versions: 0.9.2
>     Reporter: Stefan Zoerner
>     Assignee: Alex Karasulu
>     Priority: Minor
>      Fix For: 0.9.3
>  Attachments: MatchingRuleCompareTest.java
>
> The compare operation provides wrong results for some matching rules. I made tests with four rules, two of them worked, two of them not. 
> caseIgnoreMatch failed (compare("Amos", "AMOS") => false)
> telephoneNumberMatch failed
> octetStringMatch worked
> distinguishedNameMatch worked
> A corresponding test case with all four cases is included to this issue. 
> I changed the CompareHandler in org.apache.ldap.server.protocol to use the comparator from the AttributeTypeRegistry instead of Attribute.contains(...). This removed the problem, but I am unsure, whether this implementation is desired by design. Especially in case of multivalued attributes, the implementation is not optimal (e.g. many member values in a groupOfUniqueNames), because it seems to be necessary to loop over the attr values by the handler.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

[jira] Resolved: (DIREVE-243) Compare operation does not adhere to some matching rules

Posted by "Alex Karasulu (JIRA)" <di...@incubator.apache.org>.
     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIREVE-243?page=all ]
     
Alex Karasulu resolved DIREVE-243:
----------------------------------

    Fix Version: 0.9.3
     Resolution: Fixed

Added test case and made corrections under revision 280388 here:

http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&rev=280388

Stefan please take a look at the note in the commit message regarding the telephoneNumber test case.  Thanks!!!!

> Compare operation does not adhere to some matching rules
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DIREVE-243
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIREVE-243
>      Project: Directory Server
>         Type: Bug
>     Versions: 0.9.2
>     Reporter: Stefan Zoerner
>     Assignee: Alex Karasulu
>     Priority: Minor
>      Fix For: 0.9.3
>  Attachments: MatchingRuleCompareTest.java
>
> The compare operation provides wrong results for some matching rules. I made tests with four rules, two of them worked, two of them not. 
> caseIgnoreMatch failed (compare("Amos", "AMOS") => false)
> telephoneNumberMatch failed
> octetStringMatch worked
> distinguishedNameMatch worked
> A corresponding test case with all four cases is included to this issue. 
> I changed the CompareHandler in org.apache.ldap.server.protocol to use the comparator from the AttributeTypeRegistry instead of Attribute.contains(...). This removed the problem, but I am unsure, whether this implementation is desired by design. Especially in case of multivalued attributes, the implementation is not optimal (e.g. many member values in a groupOfUniqueNames), because it seems to be necessary to loop over the attr values by the handler.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira