You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I spent several hours trying to understand why voms-proxy-init was unable to check the VOMS AC for the VO. It turned out to be caused by a typo in the VOMS AA configuration with the variable used to defined the VO (VOMS_AA_VO) being mispelled as VOMS_AA_V0 (ending character being a zero instead of 0 ) in the environment file. As a result the vo-name property was "undefined" (defined as ${VOMS_AA_VO} in our case).
IMO, it makes no sense to try to run the service without the vo-name property defined to a sensible value. It would be much easier to spot a misconfiguration if the service was refusing to start when it is not the case. Trivial checks for the vo-name value validity may include:
Similarly, if MR #919 is accepted, it would be good to do the same check for host property (unless it has an undocumented default in the code). For the port property, the default value is a string instead of a number and raises an explicit exception so the check is less needed but may be good too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I spent several hours trying to understand why
voms-proxy-init
was unable to check the VOMS AC for the VO. It turned out to be caused by a typo in the VOMS AA configuration with the variable used to defined the VO (VOMS_AA_VO
) being mispelled asVOMS_AA_V0
(ending character being a zero instead of0
) in the environment file. As a result thevo-name
property was "undefined" (defined as${VOMS_AA_VO}
in our case).IMO, it makes no sense to try to run the service without the
vo-name
property defined to a sensible value. It would be much easier to spot a misconfiguration if the service was refusing to start when it is not the case. Trivial checks for thevo-name
value validity may include:$
undefined
.Similarly, if MR #919 is accepted, it would be good to do the same check for
host
property (unless it has an undocumented default in the code). For theport
property, the default value is a string instead of a number and raises an explicit exception so the check is less needed but may be good too.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: