[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HTCondor-users] authz rule inconsistency
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:55:45 -0500
- From: Zachary Miller <zmiller@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [HTCondor-users] authz rule inconsistency
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 01:44:26PM +0200, Pek Daniel wrote:
> Based on my conversation with Brian, I thought that SCHEDD.ALLOW_NEGOTIATOR
> and ALLOW_NEGOTIATOR_SCHEDD are different notations for the very same thing
> (aka. "synonyms").
> However, it seems not to be the case. Could somebody explain what's going
In case 1 and 2, an empty value for ALLOW_NEGOTIATOR_SCHEDD is being picked up
and used, and ALLOW_NEGOTIATOR and SCHEDD.ALLOW_NEGOTIATOR are being ignored.
This seems broken to me as well. (I have a hunch about how that happened.)
I suspect it will say, "Not defined" but what do you get from the command:
condor_config_val -verbose ALLOW_NEGOTIATOR_SCHEDD
In any case, for now, use ALLOW_NEGOTIATOR_SCHEDD for your definition. Once
again, I'll need to investigate the source code a little and will create a
ticket when I know more.