| Summary: | Attributes removed in LDAP | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen) <tomascohen> | 
| Component: | Authentication | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> | 
| Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> | 
| Severity: | major | ||
| Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | dpavlin, jonathan.druart | 
| Version: | Main | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| GIT URL: | Initiative type: | --- | |
| Sponsorship status: | --- | Crowdfunding goal: | 0 | 
| Patch complexity: | --- | Documentation contact: | |
| Documentation submission: | Text to go in the release notes: | ||
| Version(s) released in: | Circulation function: | ||
| Bug Depends on: | 20443 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 27956 | ||
| Attachments: | :x Bug 27957: Fix LDAP and patron's attributes Bug 27957: Fix LDAP and patron's attributes | ||
| 
        
          Description
        
        
          Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen)
        
        
        
        
          2021-03-15 15:07:53 UTC
        
       Created attachment 118364 [details] [review] :x Something like that? What do we do if an exception is raised? Created attachment 118365 [details] [review] Bug 27957: Fix LDAP and patron's attributes (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #2) > Something like that? What do we do if an exception is raised? I would rather loop through them using $patron->add_extended_attribute inside a try/catch block and warning as we already do. Then we will keep adding them, and won't deal with the constraints. Maybe I misunderstood you. Don't you think the code is more readable as it? (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #6) > Maybe I misunderstood you. > > Don't you think the code is more readable as it? Not at all. But the old behavior seemed to be to just warn on failed attributes. Using a single call like that will prevent attributes to be set. Created attachment 118384 [details] [review] Bug 27957: Fix LDAP and patron's attributes Shoudl this have been marked as NSO? (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #9) > Shoudl this have been marked as NSO? No, it's missing tests. |