Avoid known issues with random name generation #2674
Conversation
labkey-tchad
requested review from
a team and
labkey-danield
and removed request for
a team
…fb_fixRandomFieldProblems
|
FYI, I just opened a PR to develop (due to an |
| if (fieldName != null && fieldName.length() > 64 && fieldName.toLowerCase().contains("key")) // Not guaranteed but likely a list key | ||
| return true; // Issue 53706: List key field name length is limited to 64 characters |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As @labkey-jeckels mentioned, this issue will be fixed in develop very soon, so this code can be removed there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is like picking your poison. This will keep the noise down in 25.9 but we will have to remember to remove this code when merging from 25.9 into develop.
Hopefully having the issue listed here will be a clue when merging into develop to not take this line.
| if (fieldName != null && fieldName.length() > 64 && fieldName.toLowerCase().contains("key")) // Not guaranteed but likely a list key | ||
| return true; // Issue 53706: List key field name length is limited to 64 characters |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is like picking your poison. This will keep the noise down in 25.9 but we will have to remember to remove this code when merging from 25.9 into develop.
Hopefully having the issue listed here will be a clue when merging into develop to not take this line.
Rationale
There are some known issues with random field and domain name generation.
Issue 53706: List key field name length is limited to 64 characters. We should avoid long list key names until this issue is resolved. Limiting the length of names containing "key" should be sufficient to prevent test failures due to this issue.
Numerous SM Starter and SM Trial tests fail because they can't validate names using the
validateDomainAndFieldNamesAPI; either because the initial user hasn't been created or there isn't a browser session available to piggy-back. I've reimplemented the test-side name validation that we did before that API was created. We can revisit this this later but I'd like to get those tests passing; making the API work reliably would be a much more involved update. (The existing API validation can be enabled via the newwebtest.remote.domain.validationtest property)Related Pull Requests
Changes