samba - Feb 2018 - samba-tool dbcheck on 4.7.5, after bug 13228

On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 11:44 +0000, Jonathan Hunter via samba
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Replying to my own query, for those following along at home (or reading the
> archives in the future). Thanks very much to Garming for giving me these
> pointers.
> 
> My initial query probably wasn't very clear - apologies - but what it
> boiled down to was that "samba-tool dbcheck --cross-ncs"
identified a
> number of errors, but these were *NOT* fixed when I ran the same command
> with "--yes".
> 
> The answer was that I needed to run dbcheck *without* the "--yes"
argument,
> and instead manually specify y / all during the check itself. *These have
> slightly different behaviours*, particularly if there is an error in the
> middle which might be happening.
> 
> This successfully fixed the errors I had in my DB (actually, I still had
> some group membership issues with some newer users I had added to Domain
> Users / Domain Guests) but the bulk of the problems are now gone. I did
> also run the dbcheck on each DC individually; each had a slightly different
> set of errors, but most of my DCs are now reporting no errors via dbcheck,
> which is good :-)
> 
> I'm therefore not sure if the "samba-tool dbcheck --help"
wording for
> "--yes" should be updated.
> Currently the help text for --yes is:
>   "don't confirm changes, just do them all as a single
transaction".
> 
> Should it say something like:
>   "don't confirm changes individually, do them all as a single
transaction,
> this has different behaviour to answering yes each time, and may fail in
> case of some errors"
> ?
It is more like "don't confirm changes, require all changes to apply
successfully (use a single transaction)". 

Ideally all errors have a fix and the fix applies successfully but in
the real world it seems this isn't the case.

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett                       http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba

On 16 February 2018 at 17:56, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 11:44 +0000, Jonathan Hunter via samba wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm therefore not sure if the "samba-tool dbcheck
--help" wording for
> > "--yes" should be updated.
> > Currently the help text for --yes is:
> >   "don't confirm changes, just do them all as a single
transaction".
> >
> > Should it say something like:
> >   "don't confirm changes individually, do them all as a
single
> transaction,
> > this has different behaviour to answering yes each time, and may fail
in
> > case of some errors"
> > ?
>
> It is more like "don't confirm changes, require all changes to
apply
> successfully (use a single transaction)".
>
> Ideally all errors have a fix and the fix applies successfully but in
> the real world it seems this isn't the case.
>
Thank you.

Is there any benefit to me submitting a patch for updated wording?

Very happy to do so, if that would help. Presumably following the process
here and creating a patch to email to samba-technical:
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Contribute
Or via github ?

J

-- 
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?"
      - Albert Einstein

On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 18:13 +0000, Jonathan Hunter
wrote:
> On 16 February 2018 at 17:56, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 11:44 +0000, Jonathan Hunter via samba wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I'm therefore not sure if the "samba-tool dbcheck
--help" wording for
> > > "--yes" should be updated.
> > > Currently the help text for --yes is:
> > >   "don't confirm changes, just do them all as a single
transaction".
> > >
> > > Should it say something like:
> > >   "don't confirm changes individually, do them all as a
single transaction,
> > > this has different behaviour to answering yes each time, and may
fail in
> > > case of some errors"
> > > ?
> > 
> > It is more like "don't confirm changes, require all changes
to apply
> > successfully (use a single transaction)".
> > 
> > Ideally all errors have a fix and the fix applies successfully but in
> > the real world it seems this isn't the case.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Is there any benefit to me submitting a patch for updated wording?
> 
> Very happy to do so, if that would help. Presumably following the process
here and creating a patch to email to samba-technical:
> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Contribute
> Or via github ?
Yes, that would be great (both processes are OK, each has strengths and
weaknesses).

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                       http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba