Closed BartAdv closed 10 years ago
I did not find a way to handle all the cases, and sometimes the commented code produced undesired results. But I don´t know now how to reproduce the problem. It should be a matter of uncommenting it and running some form examples in demos-blaze, specially the latter ones. But I can not do it now. Currently controlForms only handles the opposite case: when the first form is implicit and the second explicit.
You can make it work if you make explicit the second form with wform $ submitButton "ok"
I might check some - but I did not simply uncommented the code, I just replaced it with analogue code to the one that was there (the commented out used ++
, no idea why)
Thanks. The ++ is because it is old code, when the rendering of the widget was defined as a list of renderings.
GenerateForm (only versions without autoRefresh) - cannot prepare group for checkboxes/options, but it doesn't seem to be caused by that change.
The error is reproducibe in mflowdemo.herokuapp.com?
2014-08-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Bartosz notifications@github.com:
GenerateForm - cannot prepare group for checkboxes/options, but it doesn't seem to be caused by that change.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/agocorona/MFlow/pull/52#issuecomment-51179954.
Alberto.
Nope
Aha, I know what it breaks - dynamic widgets end up having 'send' button in different form than the rest of the widget
I found no way to handle all the cases automatically.
2014-08-07 10:23 GMT+02:00 Bartosz notifications@github.com:
Aha, I know what it breaks - dynamic widgets end up having 'send' button in different form than the rest of the widget
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/agocorona/MFlow/pull/52#issuecomment-51443989.
Alberto.
Yeah, maybe there is no point trying to.
In above case, my explicit form laters gets removed and replaced by implicit one (it manifests with removal of
class main-form
). I've tracked this to thecontrolForms
function, and noticed some commented out code - why was that, and is this pull request correct then? (In my case it is).