You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This may be overthinking things, but the approach here now is that the candidate search string is configured with the two defcustoms. While there are sensible defaults there, it might be feasible that a user configures these in such a way that the candidates are not all unique. For example, say they nil the suffix, and some records don't have titles.
Potential simple solution: add the key to the "invisible" section of the candidate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In theory, a user can now configure the candidate strings in such a way
that, with certain records, candidates may not be unique. This ensures
that doesn't happen.
fix#55
In theory, a user can now configure the candidate strings in such a way
that, with certain records, candidates may not be unique. This ensures
that doesn't happen.
fix#55
bdarcus
changed the title
add key to "invisible" part of candidate to ensure uniqueness?
add key to "invisible" part of candidate to ensure uniqueness
Apr 3, 2021
This may be overthinking things, but the approach here now is that the candidate search string is configured with the two defcustoms. While there are sensible defaults there, it might be feasible that a user configures these in such a way that the candidates are not all unique. For example, say they nil the suffix, and some records don't have titles.
Potential simple solution: add the key to the "invisible" section of the candidate.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: