It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

In RDNG 6.0.2 iFix003, is there a limit on number of characters in the artifact Name field, and if so, what is the limit?

Chris Grev (112) | asked Aug 24 '17, 10:28 a.m.

On our server instance running 6.0.2 iFix 003, I've found that when I use the create artifact dialog and enter data into the primary text field, it auto-populates name with the same data. If I enter more than 255 characters into the primary text field, then name is truncated after 255 characters.

Yet, if I use the inline edit to update the name field for an existing artifact, or if I use the create artifact dialog and enter text directly into the name field (with some or no text added into the primary text field), then name accepts and saves more than 255 characters.

Is there a limit for name and why is it not handled consistently for all create and update paths?

Also, name appears to be a required field, whereas primary text is not. Given that, I'm assuming that if name is long enough to contain the requirement text, and its only text (not tables, images, etc.), then the intent or design is that name should be used to capture the requirement. Can you please confirm that is the intended design or use case?

Keith Collyer commented Aug 24 '17, 12:13 p.m.

The intent is that the Name (which is no more required than the Primary Text and is not even displayed by default in views inside modules) contains the Title of the artifact (the attribute is actually called Title internally, for some reason the UI uses Name) and the Primary Text (the clue is in the name) contains the content.
Of course, this assumes that anything specific was actually intended. Internally, both Name and Primary Text use the String data type. The facts that Name does not allow formatting and, in some cases, is limited to 255 characters are, in my view, pretty big clues.

Chris Grev commented Aug 24 '17, 2:48 p.m. | edited Aug 24 '17, 3:26 p.m.

Keith, I understand your points and I read your email with the same info from a couple hours ago. I'm asking about the intent and design and design constraints of DNG and would like a Rational DNG developer or support person to reply to the specific questions.

In my instance, an artifact can not be saved through the create artifact dialog when name is not provided. That tells me it is required. I am not using modules and don't plan to. Title is not a visible attribute for me for an artifact or view to query artifacts. I'm asking about the function in DNG as I see it and use it in my server instance.

As I stated in my questions, in one use case, there is a 255 limit for the name field and in several other use cases/flows, there is not. I am speculating that 255 may have been the limit at some point in time, but its no longer limited or the limit was increase? Just speculation on my part. An answer to my question should confirm or deny that.

Daniel Moul commented Aug 24 '17, 3:51 p.m.

RDNG has evolved from offering only single requirements in an editor view (each with name/title and content) to additionally offering requirements in modules (and editing requirement content in module views) where names/titles are ignored.

2 answers

permanent link
Diana Kraaijeveld (44227) | answered Aug 25 '17, 4:42 a.m.

When you create an artifact but do not specify a name/title, it will show the first 256 characters of the artifact content (primary text)  in views, etc. The name, then, is not fixed, and will show updated content whenever the  primary text changes. This 'dynamic name' is sometimes referred to as 'ghosted name'.

However, once you define a name for the artifact, it no longer updates dynamically when the primary text changes.
In this case it is treated as a text attribute which probably explains why you can add more then 256 characters in the name/title field.
If you then empty and save the name again, it will again dynamically show the first 256 chars of the primary text.

Chris Grev commented Aug 25 '17, 9:29 a.m.

 Thank you Diana, for confirming that name is unlimited, if used directly, and not dynamically populated from primary text.

One more point of clarification also ... if content is put into primary text and is "ghosted" to name, then 2 fields are updated and required to be maintained in the case where the text needs to change. If I just use name to include all my content, then I only have to update name directly and am not required to put any content into the primary text field. Is that correct?

permanent link
vanessa lavender (211) | answered Aug 25 '17, 1:26 p.m.

 Is there a reason why the Name field unbinds from the Primary Text?  Sometimes when you deliver a change set, the primary text changes but the Name does not, therefore causing problems to users.  Also, RPE pulls from the Name field and this same thing happens.  The only way to rebind it is to delete the name field and then let it autopopulate, which is a big pain.

Chris Grev commented Aug 25 '17, 3:33 p.m.

Venessa, I think you intended to add this as a comment vs. an answer, correct?

I can't speak to the intended behavior, only the observed behavior. In my case, I prefer not to have the binding or "ghosting" to the name at all. I don't see any value in having 2 fields with the same content and continually keeping both updated and current. If I can put everything into one field and its just text and I have no need for additional details, then I want to put the content into the 1 required field and never have to worry about the other one. That's why I'm trying to understand which one is required to have content. It appears that name is that field. I totally agree that keeping 2 fields in sync, even with the auto-populate, is a pain and doesn't seem useful or necessary to me.

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.