On 08/12/2015 08:00 PM, William Brown wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 07:49 +0930, William wrote:
I hope this demonstrates how I want to tie together the other 
contributions I
have made into tools, but also making it possible to test other 
aspects of

Comments and advice welcome.
Hi William,

This looks good to me, it's definitely a good start.  I see no reason 
not to push the patch once you think it's ready and polished enough. 
Don't forget to add the license text to new files. <This actually 
to be done for many of the files in lib389 - I'll open a ticket for 
Thanks! I think that the main piece of polish is the helper.py library
that backs the cli tools to make them a bit easier to write. I'll make
this a bit nicer now and send this back in for another review.

Thanks for your time,


Here is a slightly more polished CliTools helper, and the addition of a more
"interesting" command line tool example of an attribute query tool. You give it
an attribute type and it will provide a list of object classes that Must or May
take that attribute. I have found this a very useful tool in my work place where
we have a complex custom schema, so it's great to know what objectclass to put
on objects when you need to put certain attributes on them.
This will be very useful.  Things like missing objectclasses for "memberOf", and such things, always seem to pop up, so this can definitely be used on that front.

The biggest outstanding part for me now is how to best format the output of the
tool. Should I use the same logging tool as lib389? Or print things out in the
current form? Or something else. 
I "think" the current form is fine, the lib389 logging is more for how the tool is "running" (for troubleshooting, etc), and not what the tool should be "doing".  Does that make sense :-)  Perhaps others on this list might have a different opinion.

I'll give this some time, and if no one has any concerns/comments I'll push the patch.



389-devel mailing list