On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Simo Sorce <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 13:59 +0100, Marco Pizzoli wrote: > > Hi Simo, > > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Simo Sorce <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2012-03-17 at 11:12 +0100, Marco Pizzoli wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > I extended my set of LDAP objectClasses associated to users > > by adding > > > my new objectClass to my cn=ipaConfig LDAP entry, the > > > ipaUserObjectClasses attribute. > > > Then, I created a new user with the web ui and I see the new > > > objectClass associated with that user, but as structural > > instead of > > > auxiliary. I don't know why, could you help me? > > > > > > Same thing happened for my groups. I added 3 objectClasses > > and now I > > > see all of them as structural. I would understand an answer: > > all > > > objectClasses eventually result as structural, but so why, > > for > > > example, the ipaObject is still an auxiliary objectClass? > > > > > > The objectClass type depends on the schema. It is not > > something that > > changes after you assign it to an object. > > > > Yes, your answer surely does make sense. > > > > My question was triggered by the fact that, AFAICS, not all > > objectClasses are structural as well. > > In fact I can see that, for my group object, the objectClass > > "ipaobject" has been defined as auxiliary, while others structural. > > For users, I see that *only my objectClass* is defined as structural. > > All others as auxiliary. > > > > In attachment you can see 2 images that immediately represent what I'm > > trying to explain. > > > > If this was the intended behaviour, I would be really interested in > > knowing what is the rationale behind this. > > Only curiousity, as usual :-) > > Objectclasses have no structureal/auxiliary "attribute" in an object, > it's your ldap browser that is returning the labeling by (I guess ) > searching the schema. >
Exact. I admit I have not been so clear in my explanation. > I guess your object is getting it wrong, or the schema you defined in > 389ds has these classes marked structural. > > > search the schema with your browser and see how it identify these > classes ? > In attachment. You can find only one, but all of them are equivalent from this point. They are indeed seen as structural, even if my added schema file declare them as auxiliary. > I see you also opened a bug, but it makes little sense to me. I will > close it as invalid for now, unless there is evidence 389ds returns the > wrong type from the schema tree. > Ok, I agree. Thanks as usual Marco > > Simo. > > -- > Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York > >
<<attachment: GroupsAttribute_ObjectClass.PNG>>
_______________________________________________ Freeipa-users mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users
