[389-devel] winsync syncs deletions of AD entries that are out of scope

This came up during extended testing for https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/355 steps: 1) make a ds user and an ad user that are in sync - verify ad changes go to ds and vice versa 2) move the ad user out of scope of the sync agreement 3) verify that sync is not working - verify ad changes don't go to ds and vice versa 4) delete the ad user - the ds user is also deleted Before the fix for ticket 355, moving the AD entry out of scope would delete the DS entry - but that was problematic - if you mis-configured your sync agreement, all of your DS users could be accidentally deleted This seems counter-intuitive - the entries are not in sync, yet the deletion is synced. This is because we do not look at the scope of the AD tombstone entry prior to deletion, and test it using is_subject_of_agreement_remote(e,prp->agmt) We could look at the AD tombstone to see if was in scope - the AD tombstone (with 2008 anyway) provides the attribute "lastknownparent": (gdb) p *e->e_attrs->a_next->a_next->a_next->a_next->a_next $27 = {a_type = 0x7fffc0056bb0 "lastknownparent", a_present_values = { va = 0x7fffc00563b0}, a_flags = 4, a_plugin = 0x6c85a0, a_deleted_values = {va = 0x0}, a_listtofree = 0x0, a_next = 0x7fffc0059450, a_deletioncsn = 0x0, a_mr_eq_plugin = 0x690240, a_mr_ord_plugin = 0x0, a_mr_sub_plugin = 0x0} (gdb) p *e->e_attrs->a_next->a_next->a_next->a_next->a_next->a_present_values.va[0] $28 = {bv = {bv_len = 36, bv_val = 0x7fffc0067470 "CN=deletedusers,DC=testdomain,DC=com"}, v_csnset = 0x0, v_flags = 0} So, in this case, if we used lastknownparent, we would see that the entry was outside of the scope of the agreement (the sync subtree is cn=testusers,dc=testdomain,dc=com). Question: In light of 355 changing the behavior - should we use lastknownparent to see if the tombstone is out of the scope of the agreement, and not delete the DS entry if so?