On 26/05/2015 00:55, Cédric Krier wrote:On 25 May 18:00, Pierre-Louis Bonicoli wrote:On 21/05/2015 17:52, Cédric Krier wrote:I'm facing a limitation with how trytond generate the table name for a ModelSQL. Databases have different length limitation for schema name. For example, PostgreSQL has the limit to 64 when Oracle has the limit to 30 (yes I'm working on an Oracle backend).I don't want that we change our naming convention because it is quite good and reducing the name will just bring a lot in readability. And we will be forced to use the least common constraint. So my idea is to have a configuration section which will provide the table name to use for a Model. Example: [table] account.invoice.payment_term.line.relativedelta = acc_inv_pt_l_reldelta account.payment.sepa.message = acc_payment_sepa_msg Of course such configuration could not be modified once a database has been created (or the table should be renamed). Side effect, it could also be used to fix naming conflict between 2 unrelated module (at the database level not Model.__name__). What do you think?The names of the tables should be identical for two installations using the same backend. A module should not require this kind of configuration. Could not we delegate the transformation of a model name into a table name to the backends with something like that: 'cls._table = backend.TableHandler.name(cls.__name__)' ?OK but what is your proposal on how such method will always create valid table name.We keep the current behavior (dots replaced by underscore) and use the same approach as django (last X characters replaced by 'hash(name)[:X]').
Isn't this better: hash = str(hash(old_name)) new_name = old_name[:maximum_length - len(hash)] + hash (It is probably better to use an hexadecimal representation of the hash in order to reduce its length). But it is still possible to create a table that will collide with another whose name is too long (unless we transform every table with this function but it is not a desirable behavior according to me). I find this idea quite elegant (because there is no need for the configuration file) but the names generated will be strange and not meaningful. So for the sake of interoperability with other systems I still prefer the mapping solution (although it's an ugly one and I would welcome a better idea). -- Nicolas Évrard - B2CK SPRL E-mail/Jabber: nicolas.evr...@b2ck.com Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
