[#43926] - [5] add host database port
- Closed
- 1 Sep 2024
- Medium
- Build: 5.1-dev
- Draft PR
- # 43926
- Diff
- alikon:5.1-dev
- Pending continuous-integration/drone/pr Build is pending Details
User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Draft partial Pull Request for Feature request #43902 .
Summary of Changes
add db host port filed
Testing Instructions
ìnstall and play with different setup db hostname and db port
Actual result BEFORE applying this Pull Request
postgres pdo doesn't work if port different from default (5432)
Expected result AFTER applying this Pull Request
you can set a db port
Link to documentations
Please select:
-
Documentation link for docs.joomla.org:
-
No documentation changes for docs.joomla.org needed
-
Pull Request link for manual.joomla.org:
-
No documentation changes for manual.joomla.org needed
joomla-cms-bot
- | Category | ⇒ | Administration com_config Installation Libraries |
| Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
| Labels |
Added:
PR-5.1-dev
|
||
I like the idea behind this PR, but I don't think it makes sense to make the field required.
If the field is empty, the default port should be used automatically.
In addition, it would certainly make sense to check the previous entry in “Host” to see whether a port was already specified there and, if necessary, to move it to the new field and to change the configuration.php.
| Category | Administration com_config Installation Libraries | ⇒ | Unit Tests Administration com_config Installation Libraries JavaScript |
| Labels |
Added:
Unit/System Tests
|
||
| Labels |
Added:
Feature
|
||
with joomla-framework/database#310 no more needed
in cypress.config.mjs db_host: 'localhost:5433'
| Status | Pending | ⇒ | Closed |
| Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2024-09-01 08:00:16 |
| Closed_By | ⇒ | alikon |
Thank you @alikon for this draft PR, I added a language overwrite and did a picture:
There are arguments for (e.g. using
2001:db8::1and1066) and against an additional field for the port number (e.g. using[2001:db8::1]:1066). I vote for a new field because two reasons:Why do we need backwards compatibility here? And there is no hurry, from my point of view we can have it 5.2.
Another point: I would make the field optional and blank by default if the default database port is used. This again for simplicity: If we display the default port number, then we have to change it when the database is changed.