Required field mark (*) is displayed for read-only fields

[Alexander Obuhovich]

In case if field is required, that red asterisk (*) is displayed after field name to indicate that it's mandatory. This makes sense, when user can enter value in field, but doesn't make sense, when field is read-only, e.g. when "inp_label" block is used instead of "inp_edit_box" block.

I propose we add new parameter to all form blocks named "required", that could have 3 values:

• empty - automatic detection of asterisk presence;
• 1 - always display red asterisk no matter is field required or not
• 0 - always hide red asterisk no matter is field required or not

--
Best Regards,

http://www.in-portal.org
http://www.alex-time.com

[Dmitry A.]

Yes, this sounds like a good idea.

The only concern is about actual check for Required will it be based
on new parameter or functionality stays the same and we are only
adjusting the looks?


DA.

On Nov 25, 10:34 am, Alexander Obuhovich <aik.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In case if field is required, that red asterisk (*) is displayed after field
> name to indicate that it's mandatory. This makes sense, when user can enter
> value in field, but doesn't make sense, when field is read-only, e.g. when
> "inp_label" block is used instead of "inp_edit_box" block.
>
> I propose we add new parameter to all form blocks named "required", that
> could have 3 values:
>

>    - empty - automatic detection of asterisk presence;
>    - 1 - always display red asterisk no matter is field required or not
>    - 0 - always hide red asterisk no matter is field required or not

[Alexander Obuhovich]

You are correct, checking stays the same, this discussion is only
about asterisk displaying.

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "In-Portal Bugs" group.
> To post to this group, send email to in-port...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> in-portal-bug...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/in-portal-bugs?hl=en.
>
>
>

--
Sent from my mobile device

[Dmitry A.]

Wouldn't it make sense to have functionality for Required adjusted the
same way?

I realize it's not that simple and should tested throughly for
multiple cases, but this can be very useful - don't you think?


DA.

On Dec 16, 12:57 pm, Alexander Obuhovich <aik.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are correct, checking stays the same, this discussion is only
> about asterisk displaying.
>

[Alexander Obuhovich]

It could be useful in some cases, but this is one of low priority features, because of rare usability cases.

About testing this could be very simple to test, because there are only few cases:

• field is initially required;
• field is made required via OnBeforeItemUpdate/OnBeforeItemCreate event later;
• field is not required.

For each mentioned case there are only 3 parameter (that new one) values:

• show asterisk based on actual required setting;
• always show asterisk;
• always hide asterisk.
  

This makes 9 test cases.

Related to setting field required dynamically from template, then we already have such ability. See FieldModifier tag for details.

[Alexander Obuhovich]

Here is corresponding task: http://tracker.in-portal.org/view.php?id=477 (0000477: Required field mark (*) is displayed for read-only fields).