Issue 14888 - accessing an LDAP address book omits entries without an email address
Summary: accessing an LDAP address book omits entries without an email address
Alias: None
Product: Base
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.0.3
Hardware: PC Linux, all
: P3 Trivial with 10 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
: 14889 (view as issue list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 17159
  Show dependency tree
Reported: 2003-05-26 09:13 UTC by goc
Modified: 2018-08-13 15:27 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description goc 2003-05-26 09:13:24 UTC

I've defined an LDAP address book with a record type of inetOrgPerson
and entered records using GQ. The purpose would be to have these addresses
for eg. postal mailing, and they also don't all have an email address (the
intent is to convert an existing relational data base to LDAP in the medium
term). The problem is that an entry with no mail address doesn't show up.
The query generated looks like querying for mail=* which is not always
present. Instead, the query should look much more like objectClass=*
which fetches any record below the given base DN.

Experienced with OpenOffice under Debian unstable i386 with
slapd 2.1.x (latest in sid).
Comment 1 Frank Schönheit 2003-05-26 09:31:01 UTC
*** Issue 14889 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 2 Frank Schönheit 2003-05-26 09:37:06 UTC
reassigning to owner of address book code, confirming, targeting
correcting sub component (see,
changing issue type to "enhancement" - the current behaviour is by
intention, though maybe worth being discussed

Sean, I am not sure how to handle this. Maybe we should really use an
objectClass=* - don't know at the moment if we would have some
drawback from this. We should perhaps discuss this in the 2.0-time-frame.
Comment 3 Unknown 2003-06-28 10:40:42 UTC
I would like to have this function as well, I'm having problem on this.

Thank You
Comment 4 Frank Schönheit 2003-07-15 15:40:00 UTC
mass re-assign of address book integration issues
Comment 5 Unknown 2003-07-23 07:03:42 UTC
Any good news to implement this for OSS 1.1 ?
Comment 6 Frank Schönheit 2003-07-23 07:52:27 UTC
no, sorry. 1.1 is definately out of reach for this kind of feature.
Comment 7 Unknown 2003-07-23 12:44:24 UTC
Why Not? Just remove the code that specify on query that need the
email and "TATA", Things done. Isn't that an easy jobs?

Well, I don't know more about OSS Code and I didn't really read all
that but I think that is always possible.

I think Just one line of code (add/remove)
Comment 8 Frank Schönheit 2003-07-23 13:43:30 UTC
Yes, and fixes which include one line of code usually have side
effects which you struggle with months later, and which cost you much
more time than doing it right in the first place. If you're a
developer, then you should know this, if not, then please simply
believe me :).

Besides this, we are far enough to not include such changes into the
1.1 branch anymore. Only major regressions/bugs/data-losses or such
have chances at the moment.
Comment 9 Unknown 2003-08-13 12:53:36 UTC
Can we make it a patch/addon to 1.1 somehow?
Or maybe a dll replacement?

by replacing the old .dll or .so will not affect the main brunch but
will also make this happen :)

Thank You
Comment 10 Frank Schönheit 2003-08-13 13:12:07 UTC
I don't know plans for possible future 1.x versions, such as 1.2.

Normally, a change like this will not make it into a 1.1-branch
anymore - it's not serious enough. Since every change to a stable
version (and 1.1 is near to beeing released, as the release candidates
suggest) bears a certain risk, only serious bugs (Usually P2 and P1,
if at all) will be fixed on such a branch which already is stable.

So I fear there won't be an official patch for 1.1 which incorporates
a fix for this. The more as the risks of a fix for this bug here have
not even been evaluated.
Comment 11 Unknown 2003-08-13 13:21:03 UTC
How about some unofficial patch/fix :)
Comment 12 Frank Schönheit 2003-08-13 14:00:32 UTC
well, the first pre-requisite would be that there is a patch at all,
which currently isn't the case.

Second, in general this would be possible. Whether it's possible for a
particular case also depends on the demand. It's simply that every
non-standard extension requires additional efforts, e.g. to later
decide which version a user is working with when reporting a problem
(s/he may not even know anymore that 3 months ago, a friend installed
"unofficial patch no 25"). Additionally, if, by chance, the same
library which is patched is also patched with the official 1.1.1, then
we would need two "unofficial patches": one for 1.1, and one for
1.1.1. Else, somebody could apply the unofficial patch for 1.1 to a
1.1.1, and this way revert some fixes which came into 1.1.1, making a
1.1.0.x version.
Do you see the dilemma?
Comment 13 Frank Schönheit 2003-12-05 14:19:12 UTC
responsibilities changed
Comment 14 hans_werner67 2004-02-02 12:38:05 UTC
change subcomponent to 'none'
Comment 15 2004-02-10 06:17:28 UTC
Migrate to a new account for security reasons.
Comment 16 2004-12-06 04:38:27 UTC
Comment 17 2005-03-23 08:58:42 UTC
working transfer
Comment 18 Marcus 2017-05-20 10:47:36 UTC
Reset assigne to the default "".
Comment 19 oooforum (fr) 2018-08-13 15:27:46 UTC
AOO needs a new LDAP driver: