Increase fac_Config.Value column size for upgraded installations#1651
Open
lacatoire wants to merge 1 commit intoopendcim:masterfrom
Open
Increase fac_Config.Value column size for upgraded installations#1651lacatoire wants to merge 1 commit intoopendcim:masterfrom
lacatoire wants to merge 1 commit intoopendcim:masterfrom
Conversation
Installations upgraded from older versions still have VARCHAR(200) for the Value column in fac_Config, which is too short for long LDAP base search paths. New installs already use TEXT from create.sql. This migration ensures upgraded installations get the same column type. Fixes opendcim#1104
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
ALTER TABLE fac_Config MODIFY Value text NOT NULLto the 23.04-to-25.01 migration scriptTEXTtype fromcreate.sql, but installations upgraded from older versions still haveVARCHAR(200)which is too short for long LDAP base search pathsFixes #1104