Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Set max_length=255 for doc_file and doc_url in document model #2288

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 8, 2016

Conversation

capooti
Copy link
Member

@capooti capooti commented Sep 29, 2015

Set max_length=255 for doc_file and doc_url in document model as per #2285

@simod
Copy link
Member

simod commented Sep 29, 2015

@capooti wouldn't this break existing databases?

@capooti
Copy link
Member Author

capooti commented Sep 29, 2015

I don't think so, as it is just setting the field length to an higher value for new synced database.
Though best practice here it would be to have a migration script, so we may postpone this to 2.5.

@simod
Copy link
Member

simod commented Sep 29, 2015

I'm afraid that the db would complain if we allow more that 100 but the it has a constraint of 100. Unless we will provide a migrations script.

@capooti
Copy link
Member Author

capooti commented Sep 29, 2015

apparently this is already happening according to #2285. We need to make
sure that the form does not accept file names longer than 100 chars then.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Simone Dalmasso notifications@github.com
wrote:

I'm afraid that the db would complain if we allow more that 100 but the it
has a constraint of 100. Unless we will provide a migrations script.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2288 (comment).

Paolo Corti
Geospatial software developer
web: http://www.paolocorti.net
twitter: @capooti
skype: capooti

@simod simod added this to the 2.5.x milestone Nov 18, 2015
@jj0hns0n
Copy link
Member

@capooti should we go ahead and merge this one now?

@capooti
Copy link
Member Author

capooti commented Nov 30, 2015

Yes, given that now we can do schema changes.
Should we start using Django migrations for schema changes, by the way? (this way will be easier to update production systems)

@simod
Copy link
Member

simod commented Nov 30, 2015

@capooti +1 for the migrations, not sure that django 1.6 has migrations yet but we should also upgrade it to the latest.

@capooti
Copy link
Member Author

capooti commented Nov 30, 2015

Yes, now I think south is integrated in django.
let's do this: when we will updated django to the latest (time to do it, imho, let me know if I may help), I will add the migration to this PR, and then we merge it

@jj0hns0n
Copy link
Member

jj0hns0n commented Apr 5, 2016

@capooti Can we go ahead and merge this now?

@capooti
Copy link
Member Author

capooti commented Apr 8, 2016

Sure! Go ahead

@jj0hns0n jj0hns0n merged commit 3c0f649 into GeoNode:master Apr 8, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants