You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently the search implementation supports enough functionality for pam_ldap and nss_ldap to work. This includes arbitrary combinations of the following supported search operations;
and, or, not, equalityMatch, and present. The unsupported search operations are; substrings, greaterOrEqual, lessOrEqual, approxMatch, extensibleMatch.
substrings match can be implemented by turning the subInitial, subAny, subFinal substrings into a regex to match against.
greaterOrEqual and lessOrEqual probably require rudimentary schema support to map attribute types to integer or string (or caseless string?) comparisions.
approxMatch is not clearly defined in the standard and usually avoided for that reason. However, it would probably be nice if this was implemented as an extended regex match.
I haven't even considered extensibleMatch yet, and maybe we will never support it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
dbaarda
changed the title
ldap search functionality is limited.
Search functionality is limited.
Mar 20, 2019
Currently the search implementation supports enough functionality for pam_ldap and nss_ldap to work. This includes arbitrary combinations of the following supported search operations;
and, or, not, equalityMatch, and present. The unsupported search operations are; substrings, greaterOrEqual, lessOrEqual, approxMatch, extensibleMatch.
substrings match can be implemented by turning the subInitial, subAny, subFinal substrings into a regex to match against.
greaterOrEqual and lessOrEqual probably require rudimentary schema support to map attribute types to integer or string (or caseless string?) comparisions.
approxMatch is not clearly defined in the standard and usually avoided for that reason. However, it would probably be nice if this was implemented as an extended regex match.
I haven't even considered extensibleMatch yet, and maybe we will never support it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: