Trying to get a new site provision with an url like "drupal.local" is not possible due to the validation on the title/url. I don't see what the reason behind this restriction would be.

This patch removes the validation.

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#7 hosting_site-317089-2.patch720 bytesfp
hosting_site-site_url_validation.patch1.04 KBfp
Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

fp’s picture

fp CreditAttribution: fp commented
Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs work
fp’s picture

fp CreditAttribution: fp commented
Status: Needs work » Needs review

One day, I will get it... :)

adrian’s picture

adrian CreditAttribution: adrian commented

There needs to be some form of validation to make sure the user creates valid urls =\

anarcat’s picture

anarcat CreditAttribution: anarcat commented
Status: Needs review » Needs work

Agreed, *some* sort of validation is necessary. We probably need to look in an RFC or something.

I do think that the current restrictions are too restrictive, however.

anarcat’s picture

anarcat CreditAttribution: anarcat commented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FQDN

anarcat’s picture

anarcat CreditAttribution: anarcat commented
Status: Needs work » Needs review

This is the CFG from RFC1035:

<domain> ::= <subdomain> | " "

<subdomain> ::= <label> | <subdomain> "." <label>

<label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ]

<ldh-str> ::= <let-dig-hyp> | <let-dig-hyp> <ldh-str>

<let-dig-hyp> ::= <let-dig> | "-"

<let-dig> ::= <letter> | <digit>

<letter> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in
upper case and a through z in lower case

<digit> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9

I have committed a fairly naive implementation of that syntax in my latest commit, please review http://drupal.org/cvs?commit=146806

fp’s picture

fp CreditAttribution: fp commented
FileSize
hosting_site-317089-2.patch720 bytes

Inspired from your commit, here's a patch that does the same job (I think...) in a fewer words and also allows domains starting with digits. Although it doesn't appear to be part of the RFC 1035 preferred syntax, I think we should allow it.

adrian’s picture

adrian CreditAttribution: adrian commented
Status: Needs review » Fixed

I agree domains should be able to start with digits (if you can register it, it should be allowed).

committed it.

Anonymous’s picture

Anonymous (not verified) CreditAttribution: Anonymous commented
Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for two weeks with no activity.