http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=2969
Galen Charlton <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Passed QA |In Discussion CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #6 from Galen Charlton <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Chris Cormack from comment #5) > However we are not checking this server side .. if this was the public > interface that would be a fail. I will leave this up to the RM to > decided if client side checks are ok for this. Bearing in mind we > weren't handling any sql errors properly server side before this. Yes, I'm willing to push it, in particular because the column is changing to not null default '', not just a plain 'not null', and because the consequences of somebody actively trying to save a report with a blank name are ... they now have a report with a blank name. I suppose that raises one question: would it be better to tighten the screws a bit more and have it just be plain 'not null'? Another question: any objections to have the database update set the report name to something like concat('report ', id) for reports where the name is blank or null? Setting to in discussion, but I've no particular objection if Owen's response is simply to set it back to passed QA. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
