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
Items that are migrated feel a bit hard to use. In the previous version, there was some mysterious action at hand, but it would still unarchive a tree.
OurAnalytics
└── A
└── B
└── C
└── card
Example suppose collections A > B > C and in C is a card. In the archive, each of these would appear as top level in the archive, but if you unarchived B, it would unarchive C and card.
In the trash, you cannot unarchive B. If you moveB, it will only move that collection and not any of it's children. Also, if you were to restore A, it would not restore any of its children.
This feels a bit more understandable. Certainly the old way was quite wild in honoring the hierarchy without showing it, i'm just worried it might be a bit too tedious.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Items that are migrated feel a bit hard to use. In the previous version, there was some mysterious action at hand, but it would still unarchive a tree.
Example suppose collections
A > B > C
and inC
is acard
. In the archive, each of these would appear as top level in the archive, but if you unarchivedB
, it would unarchiveC
andcard
.In the trash, you cannot unarchive
B
. If you moveB
, it will only move that collection and not any of it's children. Also, if you were to restoreA
, it would not restore any of its children.This feels a bit more understandable. Certainly the old way was quite wild in honoring the hierarchy without showing it, i'm just worried it might be a bit too tedious.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: