I need the syntax for an ldap search query that gives me the results for any object with and attribute called sambantpassword that starts with an exclamation point.
So far I have:
sambantpassword=!*
This does not return any results. I know I can use an exclamation point directly in the query because sambantpassword=! returns a test entry that has ! as the sambantpassword.
Related
I'm using the REGEXREPLACE function in google sheets to extract some text contained in skus. If it doesn't find a text, it seems to return the entire original string. Is it possible to make it return an empty string instead? Having problems with this because it doesn't actually error out, so using iserror doesn't seem to work.
Example: my sku SHOULD contain 5 separate groups delimited by the underscore character '_'. in this example it is missing the last group, so it returns the entire original string.
LDSS0107_SS-WH_5
=REGEXREPLACE($A3,"[^_]+_[^_]+_[^_]+_[^_]+_(.*)","$1")
Fails to find the fifth capture group, that is correct... but I need it to give me an empty string when it fails... presently gives me the whole original string. Any ideas??
Perhaps the solution would be to add the missing groups:
=REGEXREPLACE($A1&REPT("_ ",4-(LEN($A1)-LEN(SUBSTITUTE($A1,"_","")))),"[^_]+_[^_]+_[^_]+_[^_]+_(.*)","$1")
This returns space as result for missing group. If you don't want to, use TRIM function.
Was attempting to search our directory based on an attribute whose value is a DN. However, our user RDNs are of the form CN=Surname, GivenName, which requires that the comma be quoted in the full DN. But given an attribute like manager whose value is the DN of another user, I was unable to search for all users having specific manager. I tried (manager=CN=Surname\, GivenName,CN=users,DC=mydomain,DC=com), but got a syntax error "Bad search filter". I tried various options for quoting the DN, but all either gave me a syntax error or failed to match any objects. What am I doing wrong?
(Note that if I were looking for user objects directly, I could search for simply (CN=Surname, GivenName), with no quoting required, but I was searching for users having a specific manager. The comma-containing attribute value only becomes a problem when part of a Distinguished Name.)
The problem is that quoting the comma in the Common Name is not for the benefit of the filter parser, but for the benefit of the DN parser; the attribute value passed to that by the filter has to literally contain the backslash character. Unfortunately, the backslash is also (differently) special in LDAP filters, thus the syntax errors.
The solution is simple, but it isn't as obvious as doubling the backslash; backslash in LDAP filters works like % in URIs, so you have to use a literal backslash followed by the 2-digit hexadecimal code point for a backslash:
(manager=CN=Surname\5c, Givenname,OU=org,DC=mydomain,DC=com)
It turns out there's an example of this specific use case at the very bottom of https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19424-01/820-4811/gdxpo/index.html#6ng8i269q.
I'm trying to search for all Observations where "blood" is associated with the code using:
GET [base]/Observation?code:text=blood
It appears that the search is matching Observations where the associated text starts with "blood" but not matching on associated text that contains "blood".
Using the following, I get results with a Coding.display of "Systolic blood pressure" but I'd like to also get these Observations by searching using the text "blood".
GET [base]/Observation?code:text=sys
Is there a different modifier I should be using or wildcards I should use?
The servers seem to do as the spec requests: when using the modifier :text on a token search parameter (like code here), the spec says:
":text The search parameter is processed as a string that searches
text associated with the code/value"
If we look at how a server is supposed to search a string, we find:
"By default, a field matches a string query if the value of the field
equals or starts with the supplied parameter value, after both have
been normalized by case and accent."
Now, if code would have been a true string search parameter, we could have applied the modifier contains, however we cannot stack modifiers, so in this case code:text:containts would may logical, but is not part of the current specification.
So, I am afraid that there is currently no "standard" way to do what you want.
The current question is not the same as this one.
I have an LDAP entry which the content "This is a SimpleTest indeed" in the "supName" field.
I need to write a filter so that when the user of my software introduces any substring of this content in any case (upper, lower or mixed case), it finds the entry. It must work even if the user does not input a complete word ("impletes", for example).
The supName field follows DirectoryString syntax. This means that the default matching rule is exact and case sensitive ("caseExactMatch"). But this syntax in theory, should allow also "caseIgnoreMatch" and "caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch" matching rules. I though I just needed to force to use the last one ("caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch"), so I tried this filter:
(supName:caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch:=*impletes*)
But this does not work. I make my tests using Apache Directory Studio, and that tool refuses to accept the above filter. It complains on the asterisks, and I don't understand why, since I am using a Substring match (and thus asterisks should be allowed). If I run the filter from command line (using ldapsearch), I get this error message:
ldap_search_ext: Bad search filter (-7)
Therefore this is not an issue with Apache Directory Studio.
So my question is: What is the correct way of defining a case-insensitive substring filter on a field that is case-sensitive by default?
Futher tests:
What follows are some other filters I have tested, and the reasons they do not suit me.
Test #1 filters:
(supName=*impleTes*)
This operator (=) returns my test entry, but it's not case-insensitive. If I replace "impleTes" for "impletes" it does not return anything.
Test #2 filter:
(supName~=simpletest)
This operator (~=) works, but:
It needs a complete word. If I replace "simpletest" for "impletes" it does not return anything.
As it is an "approximate" search operator, it may return unwanted results. For example, the filter above returns also a second entry: "This is a SimpleTast indeed" (notice the "a" instead of "e" in "SimpleTast"). I don't want approximate results.
Test #3 filter:
(supName:caseIgnoreMatch:=this is a simpletest indeed)
This returns the entry I was expecting, and only that entry. It is also case-insensitive. But it forces the user to write the whole content of the field: it is not a substring search, but a case-insensitive exact-match search.
Test #4 filter:
(supName:caseIgnoreMatch:=*impletes*)
This returns a "Bad search filter (-7)" error, with is expected since I am not allowed to use substring syntax in an exact matching rule.
And finally, the Test #5 filter:
(supName:caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch:=*impletes*)
Which I expected to work, but returns a "Bad search filter (-7)" error.
Additional info - Opposite example
I have found here (see the "Extensible Matching" section at the end) examples of the opposite case. In the example, the field "sn" uses the "caseIgnoreMatch" matching rule by default (making it case-insensitive). So what they want in the example is to do a case-sensitive substring search. This is the filter they use:
(sn:caseExactSubstringMatch:=*S*)
But I doubt if this example is correct, because if I try exactly the same filter on my side:
(supName:caseExactSubstringMatch:=*S*)
I get a "Bad search filter (-7)" error.
So maybe my issue is due to limitation on OpenLDAP 2.4.33 but would work with other LDAP servers, although the example comes from a guide that is supposed to cover OpenLDAP 2.x ... (?)
If I'm reading RFC 4515ยง3 correctly, an extensible match can only be done with an assertion value (read: a fixed string) and not with a substring filter. If that were permitted, I would expect your original example (supName:caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch:=*impletes*) to work.
Other option is
(Attribute~=value)
-- http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/tividd/td/IBMDS/IDSprogref52/en_US/HTML/progref.htm#HDRLDAPSRCH
Is it possible to find (search) in Dynamics AX 2009 for an exact match?
For example, when I am searching in the AOT for "AddressRelationship", I don't want to see DirPartyAddressRelationship in the results.
Okay, it took me a while, but I have figured this out, it Is possible.
Adding a breakpoint to the find form shows that it uses a class called SysUtilScanSource to find your string within the AX source code.
In SysUtilScanSource.do() the method match is used to find a match against the specific source code. You can read more about match here;
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa886279(v=ax.10).aspx
The match method allows you to use expressions.
The expression you require is as follows;
:SPACE
Where SPACE is the character ' '. Sets the match to blanks, tabulations, and control characters such as Enter (new line).
For example:
match("ab: cd","ab cd"); //returns 1
match("ab: cd","ab\ncd"); //returns 1
match("ab: cd","ab\tcd"); //returns 1
match("ab: cd","ab cd"); //returns 0 - only the first space is matched
Therefore, in your example you need enter the following string in the "containing text" field;
: AddressRelationship:
Note that in the above string there are spaces in the following locations;
:SPACEAddressRelationship:SPACE
Try it. I did, it works a treat.
When you do the find, look at "properties" tab at the end of the find form window. This allows you to scale down the search based on properties. I do not believe there is a way to use an exact match but you can narrow your search down using the properties.