Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Modification by filter #2186

Merged
merged 45 commits into from
Oct 3, 2024
Merged

Modification by filter #2186

merged 45 commits into from
Oct 3, 2024

Conversation

thangqp
Copy link
Contributor

@thangqp thangqp commented Jul 22, 2024

@thangqp thangqp closed this Jul 24, 2024
@thangqp thangqp deleted the modification_by_filter branch July 24, 2024 16:27
@thangqp thangqp restored the modification_by_filter branch July 24, 2024 17:29
@thangqp thangqp reopened this Jul 24, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@Mathieu-Deharbe Mathieu-Deharbe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This may be because I am using the modification_by_filter_no_migration_data branch, just let me know. But I am losing a value if I close and reopen the field :

perte de valeur

If I apply the network modification this works fine so the value is saved in the database.

But in the log, the new value (12) is written nowhere 👍

image

Not a bug but I think that would be a good improvement to add it.

=> OK DONE

@thangqp
Copy link
Contributor Author

thangqp commented Sep 12, 2024

This may be because I am using the modification_by_filter_no_migration_data branch, just let me know. But I am losing a value if I close and reopen the field :

perte de valeur perte de valeur

If I apply the network modification this works fine so the value is saved in the database.

But in the log, the new value (12) is written nowhere 👍

image

Not a bug but I think that would be a good improvement to add it.

The first issue, I will verify what happens

The second issue, we can show severity TRACE to show the transition of values

image

})
)
.required()
.min(1, 'FieldIsRequired'),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no translation for FieldIsRequired ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The translation looks fine to me :

"FieldIsRequired": "This field is required",
"FieldIsRequired": "Ce champ doit être renseigné",

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

YupRequired is a newer key, I think should switch to the newer

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

DONE

interface AssignmentFormProps {
name: string;
index: number;
predefinedProperties: any;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

type of predefinedProperties

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

DONE

Copy link
Contributor

@Mathieu-Deharbe Mathieu-Deharbe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The '=' icon required in the PO ticket is missing (but exists in the modification by formula).

image

OK DONE

})
)
.required()
.min(1, 'FieldIsRequired'),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The translation looks fine to me :

"FieldIsRequired": "This field is required",
"FieldIsRequired": "Ce champ doit être renseigné",

src/services/study/network-modifications.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@ghazwarhili ghazwarhili left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

code => OK

Signed-off-by: Thang PHAM <phamthang37@gmail.com>
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Oct 3, 2024

@thangqp thangqp merged commit 3ea6d01 into main Oct 3, 2024
4 checks passed
@thangqp thangqp deleted the modification_by_filter branch October 3, 2024 14:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants