You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
This is technically a feature request, but I labeled it as a bug because I think it might be fairly common to add cojo to any existing views for CollectionObject or CollectionObjectGroup without explicitly specifying the CollectionObjectGroupJoin_Sub view.
@specify/ux-testing, do you think the case would be very common?
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
Go the DataEntry form for a new CollectionObjectGroupJoin
See the form is blank
This works as a fix for the common case for now --- viewing a COJO from a related resource.
Although, the problem still happens when directly viewing the COJO.
Specify a viewname which points to a view using the default CollectionObjectGroupJoin view
a. If viewname is ommitted, Specify will automatically use the view with the related table's name (CollectionObjectGroupJoin in this case)
Go to the respective DataEntry form for a new record of the modified view
Add a new CollectionObjectGroupJoin
See the form is blank
blank_cojo.mov
Expected behavior
Ideally, I think we should show something for the CollectionObjectGroupJoin form when there is no child CollectionObject or CollectionObjectGroup.
An easy fix would just be to update the form definition to at least include both the childCo and childCog when both are empty: when one is set, the other condition would take precedence and update the form.
Business rules should still prevent the user from saving a COJO with either no childCO and childCOG, or both a childCO and childCOG.
Extension of #6040
From #6047 (review)
Somewhat related to #6143
Describe the bug
This is technically a feature request, but I labeled it as a bug because I think it might be fairly common to add
cojo
to any existing views for CollectionObject or CollectionObjectGroup without explicitly specifying theCollectionObjectGroupJoin_Sub
view.@specify/ux-testing, do you think the case would be very common?
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
From #6047 (review)
cojo
to the form as a Subview (or QueryComboBox, but beware of Changes to new dependent resource from Query Combo Box not initially saved #6058)viewname
which points to a view using the default CollectionObjectGroupJoin viewa. If
viewname
is ommitted, Specify will automatically use the view with the related table's name (CollectionObjectGroupJoin
in this case)blank_cojo.mov
Expected behavior
Ideally, I think we should show something for the CollectionObjectGroupJoin form when there is no child CollectionObject or CollectionObjectGroup.
From #6047 (review)
Please fill out the following information manually:
production
- 0c9839dThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: