Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
Before we open up this can of worms again look at this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459827 (sorry private bug) jesus Increasing the length of the column probably isn't the right solution. Is there more to it than that (referring to the can of worms comment, I'm guessing there was a non-documented debate)? I'm not seeing a real reason why increasing the name to match the label size is a bad idea. This has come up twice in BZs now and I just saw it on the satellite mailing list as well. -- Jason Dobies RHN Satellite / Spacewalk RHCE# 805008743336126 Freenode: jdob @ #spacewalk #spacewalk-devel ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:07:13AM -0400, Jason Dobies wrote: Before we open up this can of worms again look at this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459827 (sorry private bug) jesus Increasing the length of the column probably isn't the right solution. Is there more to it than that (referring to the can of worms comment, I'm guessing there was a non-documented debate)? I'm not seeing a real reason why increasing the name to match the label size is a bad idea. This has come up twice in BZs now and I just saw it on the satellite mailing list as well. Isn't the main problem here the fact that whatever limit you chose, if the original channel is at or near the limit, the cloned one will be over limit? So the real fix is to - match the textfield length in the WebUI to the column width, whatever that one is; - if the generated name would end up longer, truncate it in such a way that the name is still unique; - when handling the form, verify that the data is indeed shorter or equal the column width. -- Jan Pazdziora Senior Software Engineer, Satellite Engineering, Red Hat ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
Isn't the main problem here the fact that whatever limit you chose, if the original channel is at or near the limit, the cloned one will be over limit? So the real fix is to - match the textfield length in the WebUI to the column width, whatever that one is; - if the generated name would end up longer, truncate it in such a way that the name is still unique; - when handling the form, verify that the data is indeed shorter or equal the column width. That's what I was getting at in my original e-mail, that the truncation is the answer (though based on the other BZ it looks like that's explicitly not the desired approach). The question of the channel name length came up related to this since if Red Hat channels themselves are so close to the limit, customer channels might be as well. Since we give the extra space for labels, why not raise name to match that? -- Jason Dobies RHN Satellite / Spacewalk RHCE# 805008743336126 Freenode: jdob @ #spacewalk #spacewalk-devel ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:07:13AM -0400, Jason Dobies wrote: Before we open up this can of worms again look at this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459827 (sorry private bug) jesus Increasing the length of the column probably isn't the right solution. Is there more to it than that (referring to the can of worms comment, I'm guessing there was a non-documented debate)? I'm not seeing a real reason why increasing the name to match the label size is a bad idea. This has come up twice in BZs now and I just saw it on the satellite mailing list as well. I guess the debate was how big is big enough? At what point do we stop? If we make it 256 and we get to cloning a channel that creates a name of 257 what then? We're back in the same place we started? The problem was found because we (Spacewalk) were autogenerating an invalid name that was larger than the db column. So we can make it 256 and still have the same problem. How do we deal with the case where the auto generated name is longer than the allotted space? message to the user that it is too long? truncate? prompt for the name ALWAYS? I'm not really opposed to increasing it, I'm more opposed to increasing the column and simply postponing the problem. -- jesus m. rodriguez| jes...@redhat.com sr. software engineer | irc: zeus rhn satellite spacewalk | 919.754.4413 (w) rhce # 805008586930012| 919.623.0080 (c) +---+ | Those who cannot learn from history | | are doomed to repeat it. | | -- George Santayana | +---+ ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
I guess the debate was how big is big enough? At what point do we stop? If we make it 256 and we get to cloning a channel that creates a name of 257 what then? We're back in the same place we started? My original intent is getting lost. I'm not suggesting that increasing it is the ultimate solution, but if we have Red Hat channels currently very close to the max, it's possible that customers are getting close as well. As for when we stop, sure, theoretically you could always argue that there could be a longer name, but let's be realistic here. -- Jason Dobies RHN Satellite / Spacewalk RHCE# 805008743336126 Freenode: jdob @ #spacewalk #spacewalk-devel ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:06:37AM -0400, Jason Dobies wrote: Isn't the main problem here the fact that whatever limit you chose, if the original channel is at or near the limit, the cloned one will be over limit? So the real fix is to - match the textfield length in the WebUI to the column width, whatever that one is; - if the generated name would end up longer, truncate it in such a way that the name is still unique; - when handling the form, verify that the data is indeed shorter or equal the column width. That's what I was getting at in my original e-mail, that the truncation is the answer (though based on the other BZ it looks like that's explicitly not the desired approach). The question of the channel name length came up related to this since if Red Hat channels themselves are so close to the limit, customer channels might be as well. Since we give the extra space for labels, why not raise name to match that? Ok let's just do this 1) increase the size to something reasonable, say 256 2) ensure that when we autogenerate the name that is max, we show the user an error message and have them edit the channel name to something shorter that they might like. 3) open a cold one and call it a day. -- jesus m. rodriguez| jes...@redhat.com sr. software engineer | irc: zeus rhn satellite spacewalk | 919.754.4413 (w) rhce # 805008586930012| 919.623.0080 (c) +---+ | Those who cannot learn from history | | are doomed to repeat it. | | -- George Santayana | +---+ ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
3) open a cold one and call it a day. One step ahead of you. :D -- Jason Dobies RHN Satellite / Spacewalk RHCE# 805008743336126 Freenode: jdob @ #spacewalk #spacewalk-devel ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
[Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
I'm taking a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498467 In short, when we clone a channel we default the name to Clone of *. For certain Red Hat channels, this results in a channel name that's longer than the limit (64 characters). Of course, one approach is to make sure the name we generate is less than 64 characters. But I'm wondering if we're hitting this because 64 is too short of a length for the name. Since the label is capped at 128, I was thinking of changing the DB to allow a channel name of up to 128 characters as well. I don't think it's a big problem, but for DB changes like this I like to throw it out there first in case someone sees a problem that I'm not seeing. -- Jason Dobies RHN Satellite / Spacewalk RHCE# 805008743336126 Freenode: jdob @ #spacewalk #spacewalk-devel ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
Jason Dobies wrote: I'm taking a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498467 In short, when we clone a channel we default the name to Clone of *. For certain Red Hat channels, this results in a channel name that's longer than the limit (64 characters). Of course, one approach is to make sure the name we generate is less than 64 characters. But I'm wondering if we're hitting this because 64 is too short of a length for the name. Since the label is capped at 128, I was thinking of changing the DB to allow a channel name of up to 128 characters as well. I don't think it's a big problem, but for DB changes like this I like to throw it out there first in case someone sees a problem that I'm not seeing. Yep I hit the same for package names and iirc we bumped it to 256. So yep I agree with db change. ~ Prad ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
Re: [Spacewalk-devel] Channel Name Length
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Pradeep Kilambi pkila...@redhat.com wrote: Jason Dobies wrote: I'm taking a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498467 In short, when we clone a channel we default the name to Clone of *. For certain Red Hat channels, this results in a channel name that's longer than the limit (64 characters). Of course, one approach is to make sure the name we generate is less than 64 characters. But I'm wondering if we're hitting this because 64 is too short of a length for the name. Since the label is capped at 128, I was thinking of changing the DB to allow a channel name of up to 128 characters as well. I don't think it's a big problem, but for DB changes like this I like to throw it out there first in case someone sees a problem that I'm not seeing. Yep I hit the same for package names and iirc we bumped it to 256. So yep I agree with db change. Before we open up this can of worms again look at this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459827 (sorry private bug) jesus ___ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
