[6.8.3] Share Name Validation

It's a catch-22 situation.  In this case, its because of the limitations of FAT-32 on the flash drive.  The share does get created correctly, but its the settings for it that can't be changed or modified.

 

A similar situation arises if you create "share1" and "SHARE1".  So far as Unraid is concerned, each is a different share.  But, the settings would be messed because FAT32 can't differentiate a file share1.cfg and SHARE1.cfg

 

Has existed forever.  While not impossible to fix, complications arise because of this in how do you actually name the file on the flash drive.  You can't just substitute characters because the substitution may clash with another share that is named like that already.

 

That being said, probably the next rev of Unraid will disallow the "?" within a share name 

If the primary means of configuring Unraid (the web interface) can easily create corner cases that the boot media can't support, should the UI consider that limitation and make adjustments as necessary? As you noted, substitution could just open up another can of works with regard to how this is supported. Other approaches are to leave it as it is with known exposed corner cases that break the UI/functionality, or further limit the UI so those corner cases can't be reached. 

 

There are  probably more important things to fix, all things considered, but at absolute least I'd hope there would be a warning in the UI saying that share naming containing certain characters could cause complicated conditions (😊) to arise. 

Put it this way.

 

A while ago I implemented code to handle these edge cases with regards to naming of docker containers.

 

It introduced a number of problems and the easy solution was to revert back to the original code as no one noticed the edge case I was trying to solve.

 

The code change I just submitted should handle the all explicitly disallowed characters on the flash.   The other edge cases are very rare (if anyone would even set up SHARE1 and share1 with differing permissions) 

 

It is an issue, but as you said priorities aren't always in line with something that may only come up once every 10 years, and only if the user has no common sense

Sounds good, thanks for looking into it!