Bug 50080 – Handle name conflicts between extended attributes and existing UDM property

Bug 50080 - Handle name conflicts between extended attributes and existing UDM property


Summary:	Handle name conflicts between extended attributes and existing UDM property

Status:	NEW

Product:	UCS
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	UDM - Extended Attributes
Version:	UCS 4.4
Hardware:	Other Linux

Importance:	P5 normal (vote)
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	UMC maintainers
QA Contact:	UMC maintainers

URL:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:	50081 50033
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2019-08-29 10:54 CEST by Arvid Requate
Modified:	2019-08-29 11:27 CEST (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:
What kind of report is it?:	Development Internal
What type of bug is this?:	---
Who will be affected by this bug?:	---
How will those affected feel about the bug?:	---
User Pain:
Enterprise Customer affected?:
School Customer affected?:
ISV affected?:
Waiting Support:
Flags outvoted (downgraded) after PO Review:
Ticket number:
Bug group (optional):
Max CVSS v3 score:

Attachments
Some starting point (2.37 KB, patch) 2019-08-29 11:03 CEST, Florian Best	Details \| Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Arvid Requate

2019-08-29 10:54:05 CEST

At the example of Bug 50033 we found out, that it's hard to add properties to UDM  in an errata update, because a customer could have defined an extended attibute that conflicts with the UDM property.

I see three cases, I'll explain at the example of an property "initials", which should be mapped to the  LDAP-attribute "initials":


Case 1) Extended Attribute does exactly the same, mapping the LDAP attribute "initials" to the UDM property of the same name

Case 2) Extended Attribute maps the LDAP-Attribute "initials" to the UDM property  with a different name (e.g. "myInitials")

Case 3) Extended Attribute maps the UDM property "initials" to an LDAP attribute with a different name (e.g. "univentionFreeAttribute7")


My impression is that it should be technically possible to handle this in a better way that doesn't result in undefined behaviour that causes trouble e.g. for The S4-Connector.

Comment 1 Florian Best

2019-08-29 11:03:04 CEST

Created attachment 10168 [details]
Some starting point