Skip to content

fix: report the real Actor name length limit - #1484

Merged
l2ysho merged 4 commits into
masterfrom
claude/vigorous-noyce-e99c7a
Oct 22, 2026
Merged

l2ysho merged 4 commits into
masterfrom
claude/vigorous-noyce-e99c7a

Conversation

@l2ysho

@l2ysho l2ysho commented Oct 9, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Note

Lets test apify-factory auto approve on this PR.

What changed

validateActorName in src/lib/utils.ts:

  • Max-length message: The Actor name must be a maximum of 30 characters long. → `The Actor name must be at most ${ACTOR_NAME.MAX_LENGTH} characters long.`
  • Min-length message: hard-coded 3 → ${ACTOR_NAME.MIN_LENGTH}

Why

ACTOR_NAME.MAX_LENGTH from @apify/consts is 63, not 30. A user with a 40-character name was rejected by a message that told them a limit the code does not enforce. The min-length value was correct but carried the same drift risk, so both now read from the constants.

Notes for the reviewer

  • No test or doc asserted either literal — grep -rn "characters long" hits only these two lines.
  • Pre-existing bug, not introduced by apify/apify-cli#1479. Found while reviewing that PR, because the new apify init --yes failure path surfaces these messages more often.
  • pnpm run lint && pnpm run format && pnpm run build && pnpm run test:local all pass (687 passed, 4 skipped).
  • No update-docs run needed: no flag, arg, description, or command changed.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The max-length error said "a maximum of 30 characters" while the check
compares against ACTOR_NAME.MAX_LENGTH, which is 63. Both length messages
now interpolate the constants so they cannot drift again.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@l2ysho
l2ysho requested a review from DaveHanns as a code owner October 9, 2026 06:23
@l2ysho l2ysho added bug Something isn't working. adhoc Ad-hoc unplanned task added during the sprint. t-builders Issues owned by the Builders team. labels Oct 9, 2026
@l2ysho
l2ysho requested review from apify-factory and removed request for DaveHanns October 22, 2026 11:59

@apify-factory apify-factory left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, nothing blocking.

🏭 Factory review — ℹ️ not auto-approved: the pull request changed during the review

The pull request moved to 87b84abcf while d20a76b62 was being reviewed, so nothing was approved; request @apify-factory again for the new content.

check result
Static gates ✅ 16/16
Review findings ✅ none
Reviewer escalation ✅ none
Juror 1 — claude-sonnet-5-5, adversarial ✅ approve
Why it was not auto-approved

The comments above are the review itself; this section only explains the approval decision. Push a change and request @apify-factory again to re-run it, or ask a human to review.

Reviewed d20a76b62 · workflow run

@l2ysho

l2ysho commented Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@apify-factory rerun

@l2ysho
l2ysho requested a review from apify-factory October 22, 2026 12:11

@apify-factory apify-factory left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, nothing blocking.

🏭 Apify Factory auto approved ✅ — nothing to see here, and that is the good news

Every gate passed, and neither the reviewer nor a juror found anything a human needs to look at.

Approval locked to 58cdc48cf · workflow run

@l2ysho
l2ysho merged commit 9f312ec into master Oct 22, 2026
26 checks passed
@l2ysho
l2ysho deleted the claude/vigorous-noyce-e99c7a branch October 22, 2026 12:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

adhoc Ad-hoc unplanned task added during the sprint. bug Something isn't working. t-builders Issues owned by the Builders team.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants