Custom Field Select Multiple bug?

Running v3.6. We have a custom field with close to 100 items in it.
They are all listed alphabetically so whenever a new item needs to be
added, it gets added in the middle. This requires a complete reordering
of the sort field for the entire list.

For instance suppose we have item 1 and 2 already in the list. We add
item 3 between 1 and 2 and make it 2. When we save the changes we now
have two items labeled 2 and have to manually reorder them all the way
down to the bottom. Tedious at best, obnoxious at worst.

Is this a bug or is it planned behaviour? Or worse, have I been
altering a field I shouldn’t be altering?

Thanks
Mathew Snyder

Running v3.6. We have a custom field with close to 100 items in it.
They are all listed alphabetically so whenever a new item needs to be
added, it gets added in the middle. This requires a complete reordering
of the sort field for the entire list.

For instance suppose we have item 1 and 2 already in the list. We add
item 3 between 1 and 2 and make it 2. When we save the changes we now
have two items labeled 2 and have to manually reorder them all the way
down to the bottom. Tedious at best, obnoxious at worst.

Is this a bug or is it planned behaviour? Or worse, have I been
altering a field I shouldn’t be altering?

If we didn’t let you have two items #0, it would be a lot harder to work
with the list without explicitly ordering things.

Mathew Snyder wrote:

Running v3.6. We have a custom field with close to 100 items in it.
They are all listed alphabetically so whenever a new item needs to be
added, it gets added in the middle. This requires a complete reordering
of the sort field for the entire list.

For instance suppose we have item 1 and 2 already in the list. We add
item 3 between 1 and 2 and make it 2. When we save the changes we now
have two items labeled 2 and have to manually reorder them all the way
down to the bottom. Tedious at best, obnoxious at worst.

Is this a bug or is it planned behaviour? Or worse, have I been
altering a field I shouldn’t be altering?

Thanks
Mathew Snyder


http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

To clarify, shouldn’t the sort be reordered automatically when the
changes are saved?

Mathew Snyder

To clarify, shouldn’t the sort be reordered automatically when the
changes are saved?

You mean renumbered? I’d be thrilled to see that happen. Want to send a
patch?

Running v3.6. We have a custom field with close to 100 items in it.
They are all listed alphabetically so whenever a new item needs to be
added, it gets added in the middle. This requires a complete reordering
of the sort field for the entire list.

For instance suppose we have item 1 and 2 already in the list. We add
item 3 between 1 and 2 and make it 2. When we save the changes we now
have two items labeled 2 and have to manually reorder them all the way
down to the bottom. Tedious at best, obnoxious at worst.

The sort order numbers do not have to be sequential. Try setting the
sort order to a different stepping, such as 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. Then you
can easily insert new records in between.

HTH

Joshua Colson jcolson@voidgate.org
VoidGate InterNetworks

Jesse Vincent wrote:

To clarify, shouldn’t the sort be reordered automatically when the
changes are saved?

You mean renumbered? I’d be thrilled to see that happen. Want to send a
patch?

Well, once I actually learn how to do that I would certainly do so.
However, I need to learn perl far more than I know right now. But, I am
more than willing to take a look and see if I can figure it out. Where
is the code that would need to be changed?

Mathew Snyder

The sort order numbers do not have to be sequential. Try
setting the sort order to a different stepping, such as 5,
10, 15, 20, etc. Then you can easily insert new records in between.

what about changing the sort field from integer to float?
that’ll make it easier to insert items between others.

[ byron jones
[ zoom itg “In 3010, the potatoes triumphed”
[ phone +61 8 9389 5235 - N. Gertler

Byron Jones wrote:

The sort order numbers do not have to be sequential. Try
setting the sort order to a different stepping, such as 5,
10, 15, 20, etc. Then you can easily insert new records in between.

what about changing the sort field from integer to float?
that’ll make it easier to insert items between others.

[ byron jones
[ zoom itg “In 3010, the potatoes triumphed”
[ phone +61 8 9389 5235 - N. Gertler


http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

While these are nice workarounds I would prefer the system do the
reordering/renumbering for me.

Mathew Snyder