[Rt-devel] PATCH: Possible bug with bulk update of custom fields.

[Jesse Vincent]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 04:35:34PM -0400, Todd Chapman wrote:
> That could be done. Then we would need 3 SelectMultiple boxes:
> one for values we want to add, one for values we want to remove
> and one for values we don't want to change. 

If the values aren't in "add" or "delete", they stay the same, no? I
think we only need two boxes per CF.
I'm not sure I understand the problem.

	Jesse


> Then the user has to now screw up by selecting the same value in more than
> one box. And, since I want to default to a selection of "do
> nothing" the user has to deselect a bunch of stuff.
> 
> This is why the radio buttons are much nicer.
> 
> We could switch from radio buttons to MS boxes for CFs with
> more than X values, if you really, really want to.
> 
> We could make multiselect boxes work as nice as radio
> buttons with the addition of some Javascript, but I don't
> think we want that. :)
> 
> -Todd
> 
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 05:08:25PM -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> > I'm actually concerned about how _big_ the page would be with 50 or even
> > 500 custom field values. Why not use SELECT MULTIPLE boxes like we do
> > throughout the rest of the UI?
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 04:20:27PM -0400, Todd Chapman wrote:
> > > It will render a lot faster than updating a large number
> > > of tickets individually. :) Are you concerned about the
> > > table based layout? It could probably be changed easily.
> > > 
> > > -Todd
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 04:35:18PM -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 03:42:47PM -0400, Todd Chapman wrote:
> > > > > I'm not sure what you mean. For MultiSelect CFs the radio
> > > > > buttons seem very appropriate and work out nicely. 
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I misread the patch. New concern: how radio buttons will render
> > > > with a 50 entry custom field.
> > > > 
> > > > > It doesn't seem confusing to me. :) Anything simpler would
> > > > > be less flexible. Is there a more appropriate widget that
> > > > > I am not seeing?
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Todd
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> 

--