';deleted' can match a deleted value but a present attribute. for 'removed_attr' I would recommend to test ''deletedattribute"

Are you suggesting replacing ";deleted" with ";deletedattribute"? I think I had to do this to get the "correct" results. If I am understanding you correctly, ";deleted" is not sufficient, a present value could still have this state info (;deleted in it)? If that's the case should the condition test be something like: ";deleted" and not "present"?

shouldn't ignore_list also contains modifiersname.
If a replicated update triggers internal modify (mep, memberof,...) the modifersname will differ

If the entry is a glue entry, why setting the flag subentry as well. IIRC a glue entry is not systematically a subentry

typo contlfiocty

It's treating it as a subentry for the purpose of the report. Its used down on line 377 in the script to meet a special condition.

Note sure.
Could it be replaced with (rresult['entry'] or rresult['glue'] or
rresult['conflict'] or rresult['tombstone']) ?

Okay. That is fine thanks

Yes a present attribute can have '';deleted" values. So the attribute exists and has at least more than one value, but its stateinfo can contain deleted values ';deleted'

If you want to test deleted attribute in that function, it should be tested with ';deletedattribute'

Its a python thing. You are only supposed to use that format if the value is True or False, not if it's None or "something"

389-ds-base is moving from Pagure to Github. This means that new issues and pull requests
will be accepted only in 389-ds-base's github repository.

This pull request has been cloned to Github as issue and is available here:
- https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/2759

If you want to continue to work on the PR, please navigate to the github issue,
download the patch from the attachments and file a new pull request.

Thank you for understanding. We apologize for all inconvenience.