[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] Provide a way to display CLI-LDAP attribute relation

[Rob Crittenden]

Jan Zelený wrote:
> Rob Crittenden<rcritten at redhat.com>  wrote:
>> Jan Zelený wrote:
>>> Since some LDAP attributes have their cli_name value defined,
>>> so they can be more user friendly, it can be difficult for user to find
>>> out which attributes do the parameteres given to CLI really represent.
>>> This patch provides new command, which will take another IPA command as
>>> and argument and display attributes which given command takes and what
>>> LDAP attributes are they mapped to.
>>>
>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/447
>>>
>>> When reviewing, please pay attention to line 39 of the patch (detection
>>> of the 'webui' in param.excludes). I think this is the right approach,
>>> but I'm not 100% sure.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Jan
>>
>> nack.
>
> I'm sending updated patch. Few comments:
>
>> The argument should be a Str, not Bytes.
>
> Should I change it in class help then? That's where I copied this from.

I think so.

>>
>> This will blow up as expected in the FIXME if an unknown command is
>> passed in.
>
> Fixed, thanks.

Not to be pedantic but I think it should return a non-zero error code 
too on error.

>
>> ipa show-mappings user-show returns just 'rights'
>
> If it was the acting correctly, it shouldn't be displayed at all, because it
> is not LDAP based (and user-show doesn't take any other LDAP-based
> arguments/options).
>
> I'm just not sure how to do this with minimal changes. One option is to create
> new flag denoting whether parameter is LDAP based or not and for each parameter
> set it appropriately, but that is just too much effort for something that is
> not that important. That's why I use the 'webui' flag to filter things at least
> a little bit.

You should have the object Params list available, right? Can you use 
that to show at least some attributes?

>
>> Should it take a second arg or an option to lookup a specific
>> attribute/option pair?
>
> Frankly I don't see any real benefit. I thought about it when Dmitri suggested
> it, but commands don't take that many options - IMO it's not a problem to find
> one in a list of ten.

Ok, that's true

rob