Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1010905
Ensure consistency of field properties for all types
Last modified: 2014-08-06 16:03:55 EDT
The consistency of availability, syntax and working mode of the following properties needs to be verified for all field types.
- Range Value
- Default value formula
Also all the visualization options need verification to ensure consistency across fields, since there are some gaps in the support matrix.
The field properties has been reviewed
Review of form identifiers
Added maxlength to inputTextEmail
Removed disabled property from systemForms
Removed maxlenght from date
Removed required property form subform and Multiplesubform
The commit to fix this issue is not included in BPMS 6.0.0 ER4. Changing status to modified - will verify with the next release.
I have some doubts about this bugzilla which I'm supposed to verify now.
I can confirm, that the commit mentioned in comment 2 is present in BPMS 6.0.0 CR2. But I feel, that there are still some inconsistencies in the properties available for some field types.
Here are the discrepancies I found:
Field type: CheckBox:
Missing property: FORMULA - it makes sense to calculate the boolean value (checked/unchecked) based on values of some other fields.
Field types: Long integer, Integer, Short, Big Integer, Big Decimal:
Missing property: PATTERN - I don't get it why we should be unable to specify pattern for these field types, if for example Fload and Double (decimal types) specify it. At minimum: Big Decimal is also decimal type (as Fload & Double), so why not enable specifying pattern for it as well?
Field type: Long Text
Missing property: Show HTML - because field type Short Text HAS property Show HTML, why should Long Text not have it? Either both should have it, or both should not have it.
In comment 1 you write: "there are some gaps in the support matrix" Can you please let me know what is that support matrix (if it's related to FormModeler at all), so that maybe I can verify that there are no longer gaps?
I just want to make sure that the field properties have been reviewed correctly. Let me know if you are satisfied with the currently available properties of the predefined field types or if one more review is needed.
There are some properties which are not currently supported for some types. We will add this support for future releases. I reported a JIRA (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBPM-4248) to keep track of this task for future releases.
Ok, apart from the issues mentioned in comment 4, the commits for this bugzilla are present in BPMS 6.0.1 ER2. Closing this as verified.