Enhancement: Don't allow multiple campaigns with the same name

[clarkepaul]

Acceptance criteria

• Campaigns are easily distinguish without careful naming from the user
  • De-duplicate
  • Maybe auto-affix a creation date?
  • Maybe allow campaigns without a name identified solely by a date

Set-on-form-submission is fine.

---

There is no indication that there is already a campaign with the same name.

Tasks

• If a name exists show an error message in the form
• Handle name duplicate in edit form
• Do not redirect use to campaign edit form if there's an error in the form submission response

Related

• On successful submission of create campaign form, there's no success message silverstripe-campaign-admin#16

Pull requests

• Pulls/4.0/5464 duplicate campaign name silverstripe-campaign-admin#17

[stevie-mayhew]

Do we want to allow campaigns with the same name and instead attribute a date as part of their title? I know its a bit finicky, but I can see a use for multiple campaigns with the same name (even if we wouldn't do it ourselves)

[clarkepaul]

Yup possibly, or just a incremental numbering after the title as in the files area and most computers handling duplications.

[chillu]

In general, we need to visualise validation feedback, which means we need the mechanisms for server and client validations in the first place - I've created some cards: #5523 and #5522

[phalkunz]

Wouldn't it make more sense to suffix a campaign name with -v{n} where n is integer when the name already exists? We already have this behaviour in Asset Admin.

[clarkepaul]

Eventually there will be more fields for which a user can distinguish the difference between campaigns (due date, date created, permissions) so I think a suffix would work good as the most basic step. A message notifying the user that the given name already exists before providing the suggested suffixed name would make a nice addition.

"That name is already taken. You could use... "