filter warning: Ignoring targeted attribute [...] applying to actual attribute

[Cantor, Scott]

On 12/4/14, 2:06 AM, "Paul B. Henson" <henson at csupomona.edu> wrote:


>
>Ah, ok; I see; so you can use (for example) an AttributeValueString 
>within either a PolicyRequirementRule or an AttributeRule section, and in 
>the former you need to explicitly specify an attributeID value to look 
>at, whereas in the latter it implicitly operates upon the attributeID 
>specified in the enclosing AttributeRule.

Yes. And it doesn't block setting the attributeID in the latter case so 
people apparently thought you could point it at a different attribute. 
Which we implemented in V3 even though it's weird, but it wasn't 
implemented in V2. It ignored the attribute without saying anything.

>Fortunately, in my configuration, it is the same attribute specified for 
>both the AttributeRule and the AttributeValueString within, so 
>semantically it was doing the right thing, just with extraneous 
>parameters.

Yes.

>Just to confirm, for a block such as:

Yes.

>Cool, thanks for the clarification. It was just a little confusing for 
>the warning to say ignoring X, using X instead, when they were the exact 
>same thing :).

It didn't occur to me to compare them, but the warning did it's job.

-- Scott