Bug 795769

Is there a definitive list of the naming restrictions which apply to portal, display and node names? Without this I cannot update the documentation so that it's accurate.

Direct email sent, requesting confirmation of naming restrictions:

"The above mentioned BZ ticket asks for verification of the naming restrictions which apply to the "Display Name", "Node Name" fields and portals. Once I have that information I can validate what is currently documented and make any necessary corrections."

Matt,

I apologise for my part in getting the nature of this BZ ticket confused. I followed a reference in BZ#849827 to this ticket.

The only notice of naming restrictions appears at [1], which reads "This field is required and must be unique. Only alphabetical, numerical, dash and underscore characters are allowed for this field and the name must be between 3 and 30 characters." Comments above indicate that naming restrictions apply to many components of JPP. Can you clarify what restrictions apply and to which component?


https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/en-US/JBoss_Enterprise_Portal_Platform/5.2/html-single/User_Guide/index.html#sect-User_Guide-Create_a_New_Portal

This should be done by whomever goes through and verifies the docs and updates the screenshots. I don't know who normally does this, or when this is normally done.

Is there even a need to add all the restrictions in the docs? The UI will output an error to the user if they enter something invalid.

If this is going to be about documenting restrictions and not about changing the restrictions, then I think a proper doc related bug should be opened instead.

Matt,

I agree. If the restrictions are not to be changed then the only remaining issue is whether or not those restrictions are to be documented.

Matt,

Let me clarify the situation. This BZ ticket was cloned from another bug relating to the behaviour in code of the naming restrictions. It was identified that the documentation of these restrictions may be absent or incomplete. The scope of the bug is *solely* documentation.

What we need to confirm is just what restrictions apply so that they can be fully documented. I believe they *should* be documented so that the customer can be prepared. If a customer takes time prior to installation to determine a naming convention for ease of future management and maintenance, it would be a waste of their time if they happened to use something which conflicted with the naming restrictions.

(In reply to comment #8)
> Matt,
> 
> Let me clarify the situation. This BZ ticket was cloned from another bug
> relating to the behaviour in code of the naming restrictions.

This issue was cloned from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=793810 , and as mentioned in the last comment in BZ793810 this issue was not to be fixed in EPP5 but moved to EPP6. This is the exact same issue, just against a different version. The issue is about validating if the naming restrictions are a technical restriction or a design decision.

> It was
> identified that the documentation of these restrictions may be absent or
> incomplete. The scope of the bug is *solely* documentation.

Your comment on 2013-02-18 is the first mention of validating the documentation.

It is too confusing to be dealing with two separate issues in the same bug. Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913594 for the issue which is meant to track the documentation issue.

This issue still remains as being about loosening the naming restrictions.

After further discussion with Matt Wringe, I have changed the list of affected components to *only* "Portal" as this ticket is regarding the naming restrictions applied in the code and whether or not they are to change.

All documentation changes which may result from this review, and possible changes, are to be in BZ#913594.

Docs update: Correction - Any changes to naming restrictions which may result from this ticket will require a new ticket be created. BZ#913594 has been created to document the naming restrictions which apply now.