-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 256
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ad: avoid printing backtrace on certain conditions #7035
Conversation
src/providers/ad/ad_gpo.c
Outdated
@@ -3435,7 +3435,7 @@ ad_gpo_get_som_attrs_done(struct tevent_req *subreq) | |||
goto done; | |||
} | |||
if ((num_results < 1) || (results == NULL)) { | |||
DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE, "no attrs found for SOM; try next SOM.\n"); | |||
DEBUG(SSSDBG_MINOR_FAILURE, "no attrs found for SOM; try next SOM.\n"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it mean "No GPO was found for given scope of management (SOM)"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IIUC yes
src/providers/ad/ad_gpo.c
Outdated
@@ -3456,7 +3456,7 @@ ad_gpo_get_som_attrs_done(struct tevent_req *subreq) | |||
} | |||
|
|||
if ((ret == ENOENT) || (el->num_values == 0)) { | |||
DEBUG(SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE, "no attrs found for SOM; try next SOM\n"); | |||
DEBUG(SSSDBG_MINOR_FAILURE, "no attrs found for SOM; try next SOM\n"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This message is the same as above and I think this is wrong.
Looking below I guess it should be something like "AD_AT_GPLINK attr not found or has no value"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ack.
If those are totally ok and aren't a sign of misconfiguration on server side, I would change to |
This is expected on empty GPOs and we just skip the element. Therefore we should not print backtrace.
fe6ab54
to
01fd8cd
Compare
Updated. |
ACK |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK
Pushed PR: #7035
|
This was found by test from #6928.