Prefix missing for Names containing % or brackets ( )

[pri-kise]

Recently I've seen a strange behaviour. A prefix isn't added on field that contain a %, e.g. Discount % Base. If I checked the source code correct then this regex is causing this problem. return /.(field( "?([ a-zA-Z0-9./&-]+)"? ; ([" a-zA-Z0-9./&-]+) *))/g;

https://github.com/waldo1001/crs-al-language-extension/blob/4935d4cb5645152c4b6a2655de2f061a0241177a/src/NAVObject.ts#L532

[christianbraeunlich]

I can reproduce this on the Table object in the field name, as you described. For example: the prefix/suffix is not added to field(86000; "My % (Otter)"; Blob).

Personally speaking I'm not a big fan of writing special characters into the name of a field (nor object name). Otherwise my field names would look like this: field(86000; "🦦 Quantity (CHB)"; Integer) :D.

However, a quick look into the Base App discovers that they use the following characters . ( ) % / - and for example in report objects _ on columns aswell.

Thank you for reporting this issue and pointing out the specific line in the code @pri-kise!

[waldo1001]

Thanks so much, @christianbraeunlich - I published the fix in Version 1.5.8!

[christianbraeunlich]

Case closed?

[pri-kise]

@christianbraeunlich looks okay. We could discuss if there are any other characters the BaseApp might use and therefore others are using them too, but in our apps the mentioned special characters are sufficient.

[kaspermoerch]

This fix is causing me major headaches.

In an existing solution with 600+ objects fields where the suffix has not been added (but should have been at creation) are suddenly renamed. I do want to fix the naming of the fields at some point (probably when we upgrade to a newer version) but at the moment it is a huge inconvenience.

Is there any way to disable the rename for a single field?

[waldo1001]

Would this be of any help?

Probably not.

Can I ask a bit more info on why this is such an inconvenience?

[kaspermoerch]

Skip String Manipulation works like a charm. Thanks :-)

It is an inconvenience because we often have multiple developers working on the same project and if they all make modifications to the same table extension, they will all get the same (valid) rename of existing fields (not related to the change they are implementing) causing them to have to make changes to a load of other objects where the renamed fields are used. All of this additional work was not included in the estimated costs provided to the customer (which means time has not been allocated for it).

[waldo1001]

I get it .. . So - can I conclude that the "skip string manipulation" is a solution? :-)

[kaspermoerch]

Yes. It works :)