Cap database name length #6
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cap database name length to 63 characters, this conforms to mysql and postgres default limitations for name lengths.
|
Released at |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Both MySQL and Postgres have a default max database name character length of 63 characters, if a branch name is longer than this the auto_copy operations and attempts to connect to the configured database will fail. Any names under 63 characters are not changed so no existing functionality is lost.
There seems to be a number of methods to shorten the name, but adding a unique id should prevent most conflicts. Since the id is generated as a Base64 MD5 hash key from the new full database name the key is not guaranteed unique, additionally the key will have all non-word characters converted to underscores and all characters converted to downcast to ensure compatibility with all databases and configurations. Even with these limitations, the chances of a conflict in names should be very slim considering the key is appended to a shortened version of the original database name. If anyone has any recommendations for a better method to handle this I'd be happy to implement it.