Cover LDAP naming issue#445
Open
yxia2ufl wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Signed-off-by: yxia2 <yxia2@ufl.edu>
yxia2ufl
force-pushed
the
feature/IDRI2B2-17
branch
from
d57412e to
9ab7aa7
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This change covers a case where LDAP's Common Name is not equal to sAMAccountName, and current logic doesn't assemble the final string correctly. As current code always assumes both names are equal.
To solve the issue, we introduced a DB
search_basecheck, if it starts with '+', (similar with another case, which checks '@'), then i2b2 uses DB'sdistinguished_namevalue for the LDAP's authentication.That way, we keep existing logic intact, so that it's still backward compatible.
Thanks