9 years ago
3 months ago


(Reporter: jhopkins, Unassigned)




(2 attachments)



9 years ago
My LDAP login ( is failing against

Can you check my account and/or reset my password, please?
Your account did not have access to the phonebook.  I enabled it, please try now and let me know if it doesn't work.
Assignee: server-ops → aravind
Last Resolved: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Comment 2

9 years ago
Aravind, I still cannot login to the phonebook.
Resolution: FIXED → ---

Comment 3

9 years ago
justdave says my LDAP record is corrupted on at least 1 of the LDAP servers.
(In reply to comment #3)
> justdave says my LDAP record is corrupted on at least 1 of the LDAP servers.

The ldap entry looks fine.  The app is somehow getting confused and throwing all sorts of errors..

To replicate the problem, go to ""
Summary: LDAP authentication failing → Can't access phone book.
Assignee: aravind → nobody
Component: Server Operations: Account Requests → Webdev
QA Contact: mrz → webdev
Depends on: 571881
Created attachment 458446 [details] [diff] [review]
Make tread carefully
Attachment #458446 - Flags: review?(abuchanan)
No longer depends on: 571881
Comment on attachment 458446 [details] [diff] [review]
Make tread carefully

Looks ok, but I didn't setup phonebook to test, so please test before pushing to production
Attachment #458446 - Flags: review?(abuchanan) → review+
I tested it on my side and it seems to run fine.
Just realized that the issue here is two-fold:
1. Some people have so little information on their entry that they cause the "offset undefined" error message(s) when they show up in a search result. The existing patch fixes that already.
2. The dot (.) character was not considered to be a valid username. A patch will shortly be attached that fixes this.
Created attachment 458798 [details] [diff] [review]
Include dot (.) as a valid character in usernames
Attachment #458798 - Flags: review?(abuchanan)
Comment on attachment 458798 [details] [diff] [review]
Include dot (.) as a valid character in usernames

I haven't tested, but if it fixes the problem then r+

It seems we have a lot of issues with this part of the app, and that parsing email addresses is more complicated than a custom regex can handle.

Check this out,

It explains just how difficult email regexps are, and includes code to properly split them up.  You might consider using that instead.
Attachment #458798 - Flags: review?(abuchanan) → review+
A proper way to parse email addresses would only be needed when the email addresses allowed are not under our direct control. For example, we wouldn't need to parse route-addrs per RFC 822. The only reason we're even parsing email addresses is because we need some way to represent algorithmically how IT places an entry under which O of the mozilla Domain Component, which is so far reliably predictable.
Committed r71838.
Last Resolved: 9 years ago9 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED


3 months ago
Product: → Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.