Inserts fail due to cck fieldnames being > 32 chars

specifically:

• L_listings_associated_doc_count
• LFD_SHOWINGINSTRUCTIONS_32
• LFD_LANDLORDRESPONSIBILITY_38
• LFD_EXTERIORCONSTRUCTION_73
• LFD_TENANTRESPONSIBILITY_88
• LFD_UTILITIESONPROPERTY_48
• LFD_MISCELLANEOUSFEATURES_64
• LFD_SHOWINGINSTRUCTIONS_85

not that the field names are > 32, it's that the strenlen('systemName') + strlen('pirets_') > 32.

I'm about 3/4 the way through a fix, which knocks out 2 birds with one stone.

1. Add a column to pirets_fields called something like `cck_field_name` varchar(32)
2. Add a textfield to pirets_sets_fields_form(), make it's default value:

#default_value = $field['cck_field_name']?$field['cck_field_name']:$substr(field['system_name'], 0, 25);

3. Modify pirets_sets_fields_form_submit() to set the $cck_field['field_name'] = the new cck_field_name from #2.
4. Then go through and ensure the loops defining cck fieldnames now use the cck_field_name field from pirets_fields instead of system_name where you would basically have some mapping / correlation like:

$cck_field[$pirets_field_instance['cck_field_name']] = $from_rets[$pirets_field_instance['system_name']];

the $pirets_field_instance being a row from pirets_fields `pirets_fields`.cck_field_name && `pirets_fields`.system_name

I think it'd be a pretty elegant solution, gracefully pre-truncates the field names to 'pirets_' + 25 characters. Allows the user to define the field names if they like for less cryptic use in theme files. (ie: $pirets_re_bathrooms_upper vs. $pirets_LM_Char_10_27.

As far as ambiguity, can always pull the _form_validate straight from cck's _content_field_overview_form_validate_add_new()

    
    ....

      // Invalid field name.
      if (!preg_match('!^field_[a-z0-9_]+$!', $field_name)) {
        form_set_error('_add_new_field][field_name', t('Add new field: the field name %field_name is invalid. The name must include only lowercase unaccentuated letters, numbers, and underscores.', array('%field_name' => $field_name)));
      }
      if (strlen($field_name) > 32) {
        form_set_error('_add_new_field][field_name', t('Add new field: the field name %field_name is too long. The name is limited to 32 characters, including the \'field_\' prefix.', array('%field_name' => $field_name)));
      }
      // A field named 'field_instance' would cause a tablename clash with {content_field_instance}
      if ($field_name == 'field_instance') {
        form_set_error('_add_new_field][field_name', t("Add new field: the name 'field_instance' is a reserved name."));
      }

      // Field name already exists.
      // We need to check inactive fields as well, so we can't use content_fields().
      module_load_include('inc', 'content', 'includes/content.crud');
      $fields = content_field_instance_read(array(), TRUE);
      $used = FALSE;
      foreach ($fields as $existing_field) {
        $used |= ($existing_field['field_name'] == $field_name);
      }
      if ($used) {
        form_set_error('_add_new_field][field_name', t('Add new field: the field name %field_name already exists.', array('%field_name' => $field_name)));
      }

    ....

Further, i don't think it's all that uncommon to find systemNames that are fairly long, most these MLS implementations that i work with vary WIDELY, and are practically left up to the whim of the person setting them up, or adding Fields for the associations as to whether they follow any naming convention, standard, or a rhyme or reason. Or the Associations themselves adding fields to the system.

Anyhow, my .02 =)

Thoughts / Comments?

Implementation of #3 minus the validation..

small fix to the patch from #4

Setting to needs review