[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-12021?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17202397#comment-17202397 ]
ddev commented on OFBIZ-12021:
------------------------------
I can easily add a note in DATAMODEL_CHANGES.adoc . (attaching a proposal [^documentation-first-draft.diff])
Now reading the link you gave... are you saying that we need to deprecate all the entities that had description fields or comment fields by adding "old" to the entitynames, and then creating new entities and copying the data over?
It seems excessive. I'm only familiar with postgres, so I'll talk from that perspective. I believe that in postgres that all operations that work on text should also work on varchar(255), so not changing the datatype to text wouldn't break anything, it would just leave people with old installations with the 255 limit.
If other DB's handle things in a similar way, I would think we wouldn't need a "migration system".
> "description" and "comment" datatypes unnecessarily limited to 255 char
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-12021
> URL:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-12021> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: datamodel, framework/entity
> Reporter: ddev
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: documentation-first-draft.diff, field-types-v2.diff
>
> Original Estimate: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 10m
>
> "description" and "comment" fields are restricted to 255 char. However after some research I found that all the supported databases support longer then 255 char
> I would expect users to want to write more then 255 char in a comment (I know I personally can).
> I have included diff of my proposed solution as a attachment (I am unfamiliar with the procedures for submitting patches here)
> A discussion has been started on dev ML:
https://markmail.org/message/7utrgejc2c44i37u>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
Locked
