The BillingFirstnames value is too long

According to the API docs, the BillingFirstnames and BillingSurname fields have a limit of 20 chars (http://www.sagepay.co.uk/file/1166/download-document/DIRECTProtocolandIn... et al). Would it be sensible to limit the address fields to match?

I'm not sure how to handle this when the address form is using a unified "name" field. Limiting to 40 characters wouldn't really help as people would be able to enter "John Isaverylongnameindeed". Maybe some form validation would be required in that case.

Hm, actually, implementing a #maxfield may not actually help. To me it looks like the most recent versions of Addressfield cover both bases - if the addressfield widget is set to use separate first/last name fields, it helpfully populates the "name_line" field (presumably so that the widget can be switched back and forth without loss of data). Unless I'm mistaken, this looks like _commerce_sagepay_format_customer_name() will always base its transaction data off the "$name_line" variable, regardless of what is put into the first/last name fields.

How about we just truncate the values to 20 characters before we send?

Further to #2378145: Duplicate first name appearing in SagePay transaction listings, I'd suggest the following as a replacement to the _commerce_sagepay_format_customer_name() function:

function _commerce_sagepay_format_customer_name($name_line = '', $first_name = '', $last_name = '') {

  $name = array(
    'first_name' => empty($first_name) ? 'not set' : substr(trim($first_name), 0, 20),
    'last_name' => empty($last_name) ? 'not set' : substr(trim($last_name), 0, 20),
  );

  return $name;
}

The attached patch completely removes the need to the Commerce SagePay name splitting function as recommended by @kingandy.

It instead relies on AddressField doing the work.

I've tested this in both scenarios and it doesn't seem to cause any problems.

Can I have some reviews on this please?

many thanks

Richard

This appears to fix the duplicate firstname issues I had (similar to https://www.drupal.org/node/2378145), using separate first and last names from addressfield.

TBH, while this does fix the issue in #2378145, it doesn't really touch on the "too long" issue reported here.

OK,

I did combine a couple of things in this patch - including the truncation of the names to 20 chars.

Does that do the job do you think?

R

Ah, yeah, being an idiot, I had completely missed that. Looks good!

EDIT Ignore this re-roll I've just noticed the commit