bookstack25.7.2书架名称可重复

[18010472270]

操作步骤

1. 登录进入 BookStack 系统。
2. 进入书架创建页面（通常在相关的创建入口，比如侧边栏菜单或特定的书架管理页面）。
3. 输入书架名称为 “test”，点击创建按钮，成功创建一个名为 “test” 的书架。
4. 重复步骤 3，多次创建名称为 “test” 的书架。

预期结果

系统应该对书架名称进行唯一性校验，当尝试创建与已有书架名称重复的书架时，给出错误提示，不允许创建成功。

实际结果

可以多次创建名称为 “test” 的书架，在书架列表页面会显示多个同名的书架，导致页面混乱，用户难以区分不同书架，极大影响使用体验。

同时图书也允许重复创建并存在，与书架bug形式一致

[ssddanbrown]

Again, not something relevant to this project, which is focused on providing a docker environment.
This is also not something considered a bug in the core project.

[18010472270]

I would like to repeat once again that what I want you to address is the issue of duplicate bookshelves and books in this system, whether in the container environment or other environments. And this is regardless of whether it is considered the core problem by you. From the current perspective, this problem significantly affects the user experience, and ultimately it is a code issue, regardless of whether it is related to the Docker project. I believe this problem also exists in non-container scenarios. If you don't want to handle or modify the source code, you can simply not reply and ignore it. There's no need to act pretentious or act superior. Finally, I would like to say, Bookstack is shit.It won't be used anymore. It has been uninstalled. At 2025-09-23 18:26:52, "Dan Brown" ***@***.***> wrote: ssddanbrown left a comment (solidnerd/docker-bookstack#570) Again, not something relevant to this project, which is focused on providing a docker environment. This is also not something considered a bug in the core project. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[ssddanbrown]

If you don't want to handle or modify the source code, you can simply not reply and ignore it. There's no need to act pretentious or act superior. Finally, I would like to say, Bookstack is shit.It won't be used anymore. It has been uninstalled.

Thanks for the kind and thoughtful feedback 👍
Sounds like the user found their own solution to their problem, so this can probably be closed now.