LDIFDE

bjaxx

ldifde -f c:\exportgroup.ldf -d "ou=bjaxx,dc=bjaxx,dc=net" -p subtree -r "<objectcategory=cn=group,cn=schema,cn=configuration,dc=bjaxx,dc=net>"


When I run the LDIFDE command, it returns no results.

* I have groups in this OU
* This ou is directly under the top of the tree.
*I have members in this OU.



Anyone disect this and clarify my stupidity once again?

dynamik

What are you trying to do with the -r filter? (I'm not that familiar with this command)

Do you get results with just: ldifde -f c:\exportgroup.ldf -d "ou=bjaxx,dc=bjaxx,dc=net" -p subtree

Here's a reference, for anyone interested: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/237677

bjaxx

dynamik wrote:

What are you trying to do with the -r filter? (I'm not that familiar with this command)

Do you get results with just: ldifde -f c:\exportgroup.ldf -d "ou=bjaxx,dc=bjaxx,dc=net" -p subtree

Here's a reference, for anyone interested: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/237677

Trying to follow lab on CBTnuggets, when just doing the -p subtree it returned results.


So thanks

dynamik

Try replacing < and > in your -r string with ( and ).

If you look at the file that was generated with -p subtree, you'll see:

objectCategory: 
 CN=Group,CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC=mydomain,DC=com

for group objects, so it look like's the string is correct.

bjaxx

dynamik wrote:

Try replacing < and > in your -r string with ( and ).

If you look at the file that was generated with -p subtree, you'll see:

objectCategory: 
 CN=Group,CN=Schema,CN=Configuration,DC=mydomain,DC=com

for group objects, so it look like's the string is correct.

I tworked with the ( and ) rather then the < and >


whats the reasoning why?

dynamik

It looks like that's just the syntax you're supposed to use. I think a better question would be, "Why didn't it give you an error when you didn't use the correct syntax?"

I've noticed a lot of the command utilities exhibit this type of behavior. Always check your syntax when you don't get any results.

undomiel

Because lots of programmers believe that you'll use their utility as they designed it! They have narrow expectations of how errors will occur due to this so they only have very narrow error handling. Emphasis on "they" by the way.

astorrs

undomiel wrote:

Because lots of programmers believe that you'll use their utility as they designed it! They have narrow expectations of how errors will occur due to this so they only have very narrow error handling. Emphasis on "they" by the way.

Yup, that's why I like TDD. May not be as fast, but damn is it usually solid.