nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

JIRA - Workflow Scheme names character limitation?

Mirek

HI,

We have upgraded JIRA to 5.0.6 last week and now I want to add new Workflow Scheme in the system. I notice that I am not able add more than 30 characters in the name of the workflow any more.. In the previous version there was no limits and I was able to name with with more characters.. Is this a BUG or a intentional behavior?

It is very strange becouse when I want to make a copy of a current scheme that have more than 30 characters then everything is ok.. It is saying even more becouse of words: "Copy of.. " More! I can remove one letter for example "C" from "Copy" and I am able save this name with more characters. But not able to add any more characters..

Can somebody confirm the same or say that this was introduced in a new version? If so.. Can I know the reason why there is a limit now?

Thanks

Mirek

Accepted answers

Mirek

Hi all,

Atlassian confirm that this is a BUG and looks like that we will have a fix in JIRA 5.2

You can track the progress on the process of implementing the fix under this JIRA issue:

https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-28527

I hope that the realease will be soon

Regards,

Mirek

All comments

Radu Dumitriu

AFAIK, WorkflowScheme has a name of max 255 chars (as defined in entitymodel). Now what are you describing is a javascript?!? problem, possibly ... Does it reproduce on all browsers ?

Raimonds Raimon1

Looks a lot like https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRA-28527

Mirek

Hi Radu,

Yes.. I can reproduce this on any browser.. Chrome, Firefox, IE, .. This is very frustrating since there was no limit and now from some reason I am not able to add longer name. We have special naming convention and now it is imposible to follow it.

From this reason I need to now if this is a bug like Raimonds suggested or maybe intentional behavior? (to fix other bug or bigger problem). If it is a bug then is this fixed in 5.1?