Bug 912004

Summary: Input more than 19 number as search data will get wrong search result.
Product: OKD Reporter: cathy.zhang <zhangshaofang_1984>
Component: WebsiteAssignee: Clayton Coleman <ccoleman>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: libra bugs <libra-bugs>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 2.xCC: yujzhang
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-02-26 14:49:32 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
screenshot of result page none

Description cathy.zhang 2013-02-17 07:46:30 UTC 
Description of problem:
In the HEAD of home page ,Input the search data >19 number have incorrect search result，eg：11111111111111111111

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
INT,STG,PROD

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Go to openshift website.
2.Input more than 19 number as the search data , eg:11111111111111111111.
3.clik search.

  
Actual results:
the search result is not correct.only happens when input more than 19 number.if input 19 characters,the result is corrcet.

Expected results:
note:Your search yielded no results.

Additional info:
Comment 1 Yujie Zhang 2013-02-17 10:04:15 UTC 
This issue also exists on devenv_2822.
Comment 2 Clayton Coleman 2013-02-26 03:08:29 UTC 
I can't reproduce this on prod.  Does this URL work or fail for you?  https://openshift.redhat.com/community/search/node?keys=111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Comment 3 Yujie Zhang 2013-02-26 07:33:32 UTC 
(In reply to comment #2)
Click the above url you gave, there should be no result found, but there are several results displayed, but not correct result, you can see in screenshot.
Comment 4 Yujie Zhang 2013-02-26 07:34:27 UTC 
Created attachment 702652 [details]
screenshot of result page
Comment 5 Clayton Coleman 2013-02-26 14:49:32 UTC 
This looks like a drupal bug - we could file it upstream but it's unlikely to get fixed.  It doesn't seem like there's enough impact on users to justify a fix (since we'd have to get it into upstream package repositories).