LDAP problem with OKM Trial

[pldemon]

Hi,

during our test of the trial version we have found, that the LDAP configuration is not working as expected in the Pro/Trial version. The OpenKM.xml file seems to be not included by the Professional version. It seems that every entry in this file will be ignored. A working OpenKM.xml from a community version is not working in the Pro/Trial version.

Are there any other places where the LDAP configuration should be done?

Thanks!

[pldemon]

It's sad, but the trial version is useless for... Trial purposes. There are a lots of errors and glitches inside this version and it is very hard to test the Professional version using the Trial. As example the Reports function is also broken I'm wondering why OpenKM is distributing such a version

[jllort]

Which trial version are you using ?
Why do you think reports are broken ?

[pldemon]

Which trial version are you using ?

I'm using the latest released version from the OpenKM homepage

Why do you think reports are broken ?

Please find included a screenshot which shows the problem. As soon as you try to execute the report you'll receive an error. The same report is working with the Community version.

[jllort]

Trial has some classes obfuscated and seems that's the problem. I will advice the team who's packing it.

[pavila]

We have updated the trial to the last stable OpenKM Professional release and also fixed several obfuscation problems. Please, download and try again.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

[pldemon]

Thanks for the update. The issue is fixed but the new version is facing other problems As example: As soon as you change to the "Metadata" tab you will receive an error. You don't even need data. This error happens with the plain version - without any individual change or data. Please find included the error message. The stack trace: http://pastebin.com/N42Asvut

[pldemon]

Just for info... The same error is also available in the demo version : http://demo.openkm.com/OpenKM/frontend/index.jsp

Cheers,
pldemon

[jllort]

It's a stupid bug, which we have solved today. Problem was this nodes really does not exists and has not uuid, and here the security should be evaluated by path.