Re: [scim] Filtering against Null Attribute Values

[Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>]

Shelley

It is indirectly specified in the last paragraph of 3.4.2.1
   For filtered attributes that are not part of a particular resource
   type, the service provider SHALL treat the attribute as if there is
   no attribute value.  For example, a presence or equality filter for
   an undefined attribute evaluates to false.

In your example below, both conditions would evaluate false as the value is undefined (and neither statement can not be said to lexicographically true) —> leading to a confusing situation where a resource is neither lt 18 or ge 18. A more qualified filter might be:
filter=age pr and age lt 18 
filter=age pr and age gt 18

Phil Hunt
@independentid
[e-mail]




> On Sep 22, 2020, at 11:10 AM, Shelley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Do the SCIM specifications prescribe any special behavior for filtering and sorting by attributes that are null/unspecified?
> 
> For instance, given an optional user extension attribute for "age" and the following filters:
> filter=age lt 18
> filter=age gt 18
> Would either of these filters return a user resource with no specified age, such that nulls have a prescribed ordering? Or, would both of these filters exclude all users without specified ages? (And, if it's the latter, what effect is negation intended to have on the filter?)
> 
> This question applies to filters, matching resources during PATCH, sorting, and other attribute operators as well (e.g. would not (displayName co "test") match users without display names?).
> 
> Thanks in advance for any clarifications!
> _______________________________________________
> scim mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim