Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Bug] Custom Fields are cutoff in User Info #19259

Closed
ankar84 opened this issue Oct 15, 2020 · 10 comments · Fixed by #20352
Closed

[Bug] Custom Fields are cutoff in User Info #19259

ankar84 opened this issue Oct 15, 2020 · 10 comments · Fixed by #20352

Comments

@ankar84
Copy link

ankar84 commented Oct 15, 2020

Description:

Long Custom Fields values are cut-off in full user profile (User Info)

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Setup Custom Fields
  2. Fill custom field with long string
  3. See that in User Info

Expected behavior:

Custom Field Value should be full in User Info (in 2 or 3 lines if need)

Actual behavior:

image

Server Setup Information:

  • Version of Rocket.Chat Server: 3.7.0
  • Operating System: CentOS7
  • Deployment Method: docker
  • Number of Running Instances: 12
  • DB Replicaset Oplog: Enabled
  • NodeJS Version: v12.18.4
  • MongoDB Version: 4.0.19

Client Setup Information

  • Desktop App or Browser Version: 3.0.3 and Chrome 85
  • Operating System: Windows 10

Additional context

No

Relevant logs:

No

@siradji
Copy link

siradji commented Oct 15, 2020

Hi, Can i take on this one?

@frdmn
Copy link
Contributor

frdmn commented Oct 15, 2020

@Kraken-coder feel free to raise a PR!

@Bestoloch
Copy link

@ankar84 Hello. Please, can you share you CustomFields config? Is it synching from AD?

@ankar84
Copy link
Author

ankar84 commented Oct 20, 2020

@ankar84 Hello. Please, can you share you CustomFields config? Is it synching from AD?

Yeap, It's from AD.
All details can be found here #18953

@Bestoloch
Copy link

All details can be found here #18953

@ankar84 I think there are same configuration but my customFields is empty :(

  • LDAP map:
    {"cn":"name","mail":"email","OfficePhone":"customFields.OfficePhone","Department":"customFields.Department","Title":"customFields.Title"}

  • Accounts custom fileds:
    [[{"OfficePhone": "#{OfficePhone}"}, {"Department": "#{Department}"}, {"Title": "#{Title}"}]

  • Accounts registration custom fields:
    {
    "OfficePhone": {
    "type": "text",
    "required": true,
    "minLength": 1,
    "maxLength": 6,
    "public": true
    },
    "Title": {
    "type": "text",
    "required": true,
    "minLength": 1,
    "maxLength": 50,
    "public": true
    },
    "Department": {
    "type": "text",
    "required": true,
    "minLength": 1,
    "maxLength": 50,
    "public": true
    }
    }

@ankar84
Copy link
Author

ankar84 commented Oct 22, 2020

{"cn":"name","mail":"email","OfficePhone":"customFields.OfficePhone","Department":"customFields.Department","Title":"customFields.Title"}

Do you have cn, mail, OfficePhone, Department, Title in attributes of your LDAP accounts?

@Bestoloch
Copy link

{"cn":"name","mail":"email","OfficePhone":"customFields.OfficePhone","Department":"customFields.Department","Title":"customFields.Title"}

Do you have cn, mail, OfficePhone, Department, Title in attributes of your LDAP accounts?

Yes, shure. "Mail" is ok for example

@ankar84
Copy link
Author

ankar84 commented Oct 22, 2020

"Mail" is ok for example

In that case you should see that value in email field of RC user.
Most important thing in filling RC users custom fields from LDAP users is LDAP map, so double check it.

@ankar84
Copy link
Author

ankar84 commented Jan 18, 2021

Still an issue in 3.10.0
image
image
And long status message is cutoff
image
In same time Bio field split long string it 2 lines
image

@Kraken-coder any news about your PR?

@ankar84
Copy link
Author

ankar84 commented Mar 17, 2021

Still an issue in 3.12.0
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants