I don't think this is a regression. It changed in https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=842812a01c9ff959308a1d373fc5daae10304005 though

We can either remove it or add a specific example for each ddbb.
@Alex, what do you prefer?

I don't remember why I had done this but no pb to revert it.
In fact, I think we should completely remove the example part.
Someone who uses Base and needs an URL, knows what he/she does so not a beginner.

I agree, removing it would be easier, especially seeing as most of the connection strings can be found elsewhere (help, guides, internet, forums, etc)

Alternatively, we could use something like :

"Enter the DB-specific connection URL here"

but given that removing the string in the first place reduces the number of resource string translations by one, and that that must be a good thing, perhaps it is easier to do that ;-)

Lionel/Xisco/Heiko: what would you prefer between:
1) A very generic comment like "Enter the DB-specific connection URL here"
2) No comment at all
3) Other
?
Personally, I agree for no comment at all here.
(I remember too that Lionel indicated Postgresql should have its own dialog, I agree of course but that's another story)

I would rather write "connection string" than "connection URL" since not all databases use URLs; e.g. the new PostgreSQL format does not use an URL. The use of "URL" in the text is probably just inherited from JDBC.

I vote for some very generic text, such as "Connection string", without the "(e.g. ...)" part.

Can't we give a proper example like "127.0.0.1:8001/mydatabase"? And perhaps split the database name from the url. Ultimately it's also a documentation topic since help is missing.

Yep, another option would be to have a generic text like in comment 6 + the specific info for each ddbb in the help

(In reply to Lionel Elie Mamane from comment #6)


> I vote for some very generic text, such as "Connection string", without the
> "(e.g. ...)" part.

+1 from me for that.

(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #7)
> Can't we give a proper example like "127.0.0.1:8001/mydatabase"? And perhaps
> split the database name from the url. Ultimately it's also a documentation
> topic since help is missing.

The problem with the example you suggest is that it is specific to certain kinds of database engine, i.e. it isn't generic enough to work with our current connection string handling.

Ideally, the dialog itself would provide for separate fields for each part of the connection string and an extra field for supplementary parameters (where daisychaining of such connection string parameters is allowed), and would only provide those fields that would correspond to the selected DB type. In such a case, we could have example resource strings for each type of DB connection, but we are talking about at least of tens of different DB engines (certainly all of the main ones out there in use today). It seems to me that there is currently no way to do this simply (from a UI perspective) without causing frustration for the end user, which is why having an entirely generic comment like Lionel suggests, or nothing at all, would be more appropriate. Our help files have improved in this regard and do provide the connection strings for at least some (certainly not all) of the DB connection types we support.

The irony of the situation in which we find ourselves wrt Java is quite striking, as JDBC drivers seem to be far more prevalent than any other kind of driver in the FOSS world.

(In reply to Alex Thurgood from comment #10)
> Ideally, the dialog itself would provide for separate fields for each part
> of the connection string and an extra field for supplementary parameters
> (where daisychaining of such connection string parameters is allowed), and
> would only provide those fields that would correspond to the selected DB
> type. In such a case, we could have example resource strings for each type
> of DB connection, but we are talking about at least of tens of different DB
> engines (certainly all of the main ones out there in use today). It seems to
> me that there is currently no way to do this simply (from a UI perspective)
> without causing frustration for the end user (...)

It *is* possible, it is just more work. It means making a separate dialog for each DBMS, like e.g. MySQL already has. It is completely possible, it just needs work in LibreOffice UI and/or documentation for each DBMS.

There are two things in my mind:

 * the one-line patch that we should do *now* to remove,
   from the prompt that is used for _all_ DBMS
   (that don't have a specific UI dialog in LibreOffice),
   the misleading / wrong example.

 * the "more work, but better for the user" solution,
   which would be something like a combination of:

   - lots of examples in documentation

   - several DB-specific UI in the LibreOffice "new connection" dialog

But anyway, even if we do the "more work better" version, we _still_ need to have a generic fallback for the unknown DBMS, so we _still_ need to do this one-line patch.

Bug is still present in LO7152, 7204 and LODev73alpha.

Julien Nabet committed a patch related to this issue.
It has been pushed to "master":

https://git.libreoffice.org/core/commit/d4e4e273a5960fcf933729d153de76ecf796aca5

tdf#126624: do at least the generic solution

It will be available in 7.3.0.

The patch should be included in the daily builds available at
https://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More
information about daily builds can be found at:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds

Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.

Let's put this one to FIXED since the string freeze is finished on 7.2 branch.
About specific string for each DBMS, if someone wants to submit a new bugtracker, don't hesitate of course!

Thanks Julien, great stuff!

I don't have a build environment for LO on any OS currently, so can't really comment on git changes.