[PATCH] UserInputPanel "dir" and "file" now support "mustExist" flag"

Details

  • Type: Improvement Improvement
  • Status: Closed Closed
  • Priority: Major Major
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Affects Version/s: 4.2.1
  • Fix Version/s: 4.3.0
  • Component/s: Panels
  • Labels:
    None
  • Patch Submitted:
    Yes

Description

This patch adds and fixes:

1) adds: mustExist attribute to the spec of "dir" and "file" fields. It defaults to true so existing installations will not break. You can now use it to create directories and files.

2) fixes: The user input panel was not supporting the "set" attribute correctly. See my lines where I set the idata after getting a variable substitution from the set attribute idata.setVariable(variable, set);
updateUIElements() was undoing anything that the set attribute was attempting to accomplish for "dir" and "file" fields. This fix should be studied and applied to other field types which do not set the idata immediately.

Dick

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
Dennis Reil added a comment -

Applied the patch by Dick Hollenbeck

Show
Dennis Reil added a comment - Applied the patch by Dick Hollenbeck
Hide
Permalink
Kjell Braden added a comment -

I absolutely don't like how unconfigureable this is. In my installer, I want to be able to enter a path, or to just leave it empty. This Patch here requires to be able to create the specified path if mustExist=false, which is very bad imho.

So, why do we force this validation and only if that succeeds run the custom validator? Why don't we put this validation to the custom field validator and let the packager decide whether he needs it?

Show
Kjell Braden added a comment - I absolutely don't like how unconfigureable this is. In my installer, I want to be able to enter a path, or to just leave it empty. This Patch here requires to be able to create the specified path if mustExist=false, which is very bad imho. So, why do we force this validation and only if that succeeds run the custom validator? Why don't we put this validation to the custom field validator and let the packager decide whether he needs it?
Hide
Permalink
Kjell Braden added a comment -

I seem to have overlooked the allowEmptyValue field. It's undocumented btw! As you don't seem to think these validations are actual validations and belong to a seperate validator, I'm closing this again.

Show
Kjell Braden added a comment - I seem to have overlooked the allowEmptyValue field. It's undocumented btw! As you don't seem to think these validations are actual validations and belong to a seperate validator, I'm closing this again.
Hide
Permalink
Dennis Reil added a comment -

Yeah, that's correct. I'm not yet finished with all documentation stuff.... I first have to implement the features and this patch was created shortly after I checked in the first version.

Show
Dennis Reil added a comment - Yeah, that's correct. I'm not yet finished with all documentation stuff.... I first have to implement the features and this patch was created shortly after I checked in the first version.
Hide
Permalink
Noam Krendel added a comment -

Has this ever been made part of an actual release? I can't find it in 4.3.3?

Show
Noam Krendel added a comment - Has this ever been made part of an actual release? I can't find it in 4.3.3?

People

  • Assignee:
    Dennis Reil
    Reporter:
    Dick Hollenbeck
Vote (1)
Watch (2)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved: