[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3111?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Julian Sedding resolved OAK-3111.
---------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 1.3.12
[~tomek.rekawek] I have reviewed your PR and refactored the common delegation
logic of {{FilteringNodeState}}, {{ReportingNodeState}} and
{{NameFilteringNodeState}} into a common abstract class. It would be great to
have some javadocs and maybe a test case directly exercising
{{NameFilteringNodeState}}.
I also have some remaining questions:
- Should the name length check not be enforced by the cli for document node
stores?
- I wonder if truncating the name to an acceptable length would be more user
friendly than just dropping the node. WDYT?
Thanks for taking this up!
> Enforce check for max node name length
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-3111
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-3111
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: upgrade
> Reporter: Julian Sedding
> Assignee: Julian Sedding
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.3.12
>
>
> In OAK-2619 the necessity of a check for node name length was briefly
> discussed. It may be worthwhile to write a test case for upgrading long node
> names and find out what happens with and without the check.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
