Closed Bug 197180 Opened 22 years ago Closed 22 years ago

Long component name accepted on component creation but not working when creating a bug


(Bugzilla :: Administration, task)

Windows 2000
Not set



Bugzilla 2.18


(Reporter: carsten.lergenmueller, Assigned: bbaetz)



(Whiteboard: [fixed in 2.16.3])


(2 files, 1 obsolete file)

User-Agent:       Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 2000) Opera 6.03  [en]
Build Identifier: Bugzilla 2.16.2

We have a component with a very long name. It could be easily created. However, if we create bugs in that component, sanity check complains about a bad component entry. If we open the bug, it displays the wrong component (the first in the combobox, not the one with the long name). Re-setting the correct component does not help

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. On any product, create a component named 
WA-Clearing Behaelterzielermittlung realisieren (T 14.04 )
2. Create a bug for that component
3. Revisit bug -> wrong component entry
4. Run sanity check -> complaint about wrong component entry
If you manually select bugs.product (via mysql), is the product name truncated?
the 2.16 limit is 64, and it is consistant in the bugs table and the components
table. That component name is < 64 chars anyway, so thats not it.

If you |SHOW CREATE TABLE bugs|, what is the datatype of the components field?
What about SHOW CREATE TABLE components| (the program field)
All our product names are complete in mysql.

The long-named component is cut, though:

mysql> select distinct bugs.component from bugs;
| component                                          |
| WA-Clearing Behaelterzielermittlung realisieren (T |

 `component` varchar(50) NOT NULL default '',

(C.L.:) 50? Not 64?

| components | CREATE TABLE `components` (
  `value` tinytext,
  `program` varchar(64) default NULL,
  `initialowner` mediumint(9) NOT NULL default '0',
  `initialqacontact` mediumint(9) NOT NULL default '0',
  `description` mediumtext NOT NULL
Quick and easy hack-type fix:
ALTER TABLE components CHANGE value value varchar(64);
ALTER TABLE bugs CHANGE component component varchar(64);

Note: This will set the limit to be 64 characters and make it the same for both
tables. You should be able to safely make them any size (up to 255, MySQL's limit)

This is no longer an issue in the latest devel. release as we now use
product/component ID's instead.
Version: unspecified → 2.16.2
Looks like we kept that little size discrepency right up until bug 43600 went in.
Oh, I was looking at the product. Hmm. editcomponents never tests the value,
mind you.

For 2.16.3, we could:

a) Ignore this
b) Test in editproducts (50 here, 64 in 2.17)
c) Do an sql schema change

Assignee: justdave → bbaetz
Ever confirmed: true
Whiteboard: [wanted for 2.16.3]?
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.16
Given that this guy is the first to hit it, I suggest we add

"(max 50 characters)"

and "maxlength='50'"

on the client side to the editcomponents.cgi page, and be done with it.

Attached patch 2.16 patch (obsolete) — Splinter Review
I didn't change the descripton, just maxlength - it looks ugly in the <table>.

For the relnotes: 'Previous versions of bugzilla had different sizes for the
component name in various tables (bug 197180). For 2.16, the limit of 50
characters is now enforced. In releases later than (and including) 2.17.1, the
limit is 64 characters. This limit was implicitly enforced in that release,
although from 2.17.4 an error message will be generated instead of silently
truncating the name'

Or something like that.

A nicer patch needs this file to be rewritten. (Did you know that changing the
component name prints the message: 'Updated product name'? :)
I should test when adding, too....
Attachment #117180 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attached patch patch for trunkSplinter Review
Attachment #117182 - Attachment is obsolete: true
did you mean to obsolete the 2.16 patch?
Whiteboard: [wanted for 2.16.3]? → [wanted for 2.16.3]
Comment on attachment 117182 [details] [diff] [review]
2.16 patch, take 2

err, no :)
Attachment #117182 - Attachment is obsolete: false
Attachment #117182 - Flags: review?(justdave)
Attachment #117183 - Flags: review?(justdave)
Attachment #117182 - Flags: review?(justdave) → review+
Attachment #117183 - Flags: review?(justdave) → review+
approved for both branches
Flags: approval+
Fixed in trunk and 2.16 branch.
Closed: 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [wanted for 2.16.3] → [fixed in 2.16.3]
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.16 → Bugzilla 2.18
*** Bug 209153 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 212472 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 227988 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.