Project: 	
  | View Issue Details[ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | |||||||||||
| ID | ||||||||||||
| 0041881 | ||||||||||||
| Type | Category | Severity | Reproducibility | Date Submitted | Last Update | |||||||
| feature request | [Openbravo ERP] B. User interface | minor | have not tried | 2019-09-25 09:56 | 2022-02-01 08:07 | |||||||
| Reporter | alostale | View Status | public | |||||||||
| Assigned To | Triage Platform Base | |||||||||||
| Priority | normal | Resolution | open | Fixed in Version | ||||||||
| Status | new | Fix in branch | Fixed in SCM revision | |||||||||
| Projection | none | ETA | none | Target Version | ||||||||
| OS | Any | Database | Any | Java version | ||||||||
| OS Version | Database version | Ant version | ||||||||||
| Product Version | SCM revision | |||||||||||
| Merge Request Status | ||||||||||||
| Review Assigned To | ||||||||||||
| OBNetwork customer | No | |||||||||||
| Web browser | ||||||||||||
| Modules | Core | |||||||||||
| Support ticket | ||||||||||||
| Regression level | ||||||||||||
| Regression date | ||||||||||||
| Regression introduced in release | ||||||||||||
| Regression introduced by commit | ||||||||||||
| Triggers an Emergency Pack | No | |||||||||||
| Summary | 0041881: weird field position when different modules define fields in the same tab | |||||||||||
| Description | Having the following module tree, where B and C depend on module A:
   B   C
    \ /
     A
Module A defines a tab with some fields, let's say: * A1 -> seqno 10 * A2 -> seqno 20 If both, B and C, define fields for that tab, as B and C are independent the position of those fields can be weird when installing all together.  | |||||||||||
| Steps To Reproduce | For example, defining the following fields: * B1 -> seqno 12 * B2 -> seqno 15 * C1 -> seqno 13 * C2 -> seqno 30 Would result in * A1 -> seqno 10 * B1 -> seqno 12 * C1 -> seqno 13 * B2 -> seqno 15 * A2 -> seqno 20 * C2 -> seqno 30 Where field C1 is between B1 and B2. As B1 and B2 are defined by module B which does not know about C, it would be expected them to be together.  | |||||||||||
| Proposed Solution |  In those cases, it would make more sense to use sequence numbers in B and C to define between which fields from A are going to be set and also a relative position among other fields definted in the same module. For example: * B1 -> seqno 12 * B2 -> seqno 15 * C1 -> seqno 13 * C2 -> seqno 30 Would result in * A1 -> seqno 10 * B1 -> seqno 12 * B2 -> seqno 15 * C1 -> seqno 13 * A2 -> seqno 20 * C2 -> seqno 30 Because: * B1, B2 and C1 are all inserted between A1 (10) and A2 (20) because their sequence numbers are all 10<seqno>20 * Module B has precedence over C (this is something arbitrary, ie. sorting by their UUID), so fields between A1 and A2 are first sorted by module and then by seqno * C2 (30) is after A2 (20) because it's sequence number is greater  | |||||||||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | |||||||||||
| Attached Files | ||||||||||||
		  Relationships		[ Relation Graph ] 
		[ Dependency Graph ] 
			 | 
|||||||||||||||
  | 
|||||||||||||||
  Issue History	 | 
|||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change | 
| 2019-09-25 09:56 | alostale | New Issue | |
| 2019-09-25 09:56 | alostale | Assigned To | => platform | 
| 2019-09-25 09:56 | alostale | OBNetwork customer | => No | 
| 2019-09-25 09:56 | alostale | Modules | => Core | 
| 2019-09-25 09:56 | alostale | Triggers an Emergency Pack | => No | 
| 2019-09-25 09:57 | alostale | Relationship added | related to 0041652 | 
| 2019-09-25 09:58 | alostale | Relationship added | related to 0041654 | 
| 2022-02-01 08:07 | alostale | Assigned To | platform => Triage Platform Base | 
| Copyright © 2000 - 2009 MantisBT Group |