Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 13, 2020. It is now read-only.

Batch entry dimensions adjustment #468

Closed
metas-mk opened this issue Mar 2, 2017 · 15 comments
Closed

Batch entry dimensions adjustment #468

metas-mk opened this issue Mar 2, 2017 · 15 comments

Comments

@metas-mk
Copy link
Member

metas-mk commented Mar 2, 2017

Type of issue

Feature request

Current behavior

The fields for Combined Product +Packing and Quantity have the same width. Often the Product name, with important information is cut off from Packing material.

Expected behavior

We need more space for the combined Product Field especially more for the product (a) itself. The Packing element (b) can be reduced in width. Same the quantity field (c).
Please also add a small separator are between the elements.

Steps to reproduce

Open any window w/ batch entry possibility, for example, window/143/

image

@damianprzygodzki
Copy link
Contributor

damianprzygodzki commented Mar 8, 2017

Which window types also support batch entry? I want to test other cases.

The problem is, if we want to do it without adding new widget type i have to make some dirty hack, and it may cause issues in future/other window types.

@teosarca
Copy link
Member

teosarca commented Mar 8, 2017

atm the only windows with batch entries are sales/purchase order, customer/vendor empties.

So basically only Windows.

does this answers your question?

@damianprzygodzki
Copy link
Contributor

Yes thank you. Im gonna deliver some achievements soon.

@damianprzygodzki
Copy link
Contributor

damianprzygodzki commented Mar 9, 2017

screen shot 2017-03-09 at 09 52 40
That is what i can propose without much effort, but!

screen shot 2017-03-09 at 09 52 54
For smaller resolutions, second label is disappearing. It happens because type secondary of widgets behave to keep own grid consistent to other fields in window.
What we can do is provide a new type of widgets, that allows to display forms only inline with fluid labels (so all the place would be filled with content).

@metas-lc
Copy link

IT
created new product "test product with long name for testing purpose 1234567890" and added it in a purchase price list
new purchase order , add this product
both product and quantity fields are bigger OK

batch

isn't too much space between the product and the packing?

@metas-mk
Copy link
Member Author

@metas-lc agree. the reason for making the field bigger is mostly to have more space for the product name. @damianprzygodzki can u please take care?

@damianprzygodzki
Copy link
Contributor

Im not sure that changing design here will be good for consistency. I was thinking about solution here, to move packing (or other additional fields) to the left. Do we want to change it in every place for lookup?

@cadavre
Copy link
Contributor

cadavre commented Mar 20, 2017

So you want more space for long product name OR packaging name closer to product name. You cannot have both because it excludes each other. :)

@cadavre cadavre removed this from the 2017-13 milestone Mar 21, 2017
@metas-mk metas-mk modified the milestones: 2017-12, 2017-11 Mar 22, 2017
@metas-mk
Copy link
Member Author

metas-mk commented Apr 5, 2017

@damianprzygodzki @cadavre
Let's start the discussion about this one again. I'm explaining from user point, not technically. Let's find out together which solution we can get w/ which effort.
image

@metas-mk
Copy link
Member Author

metas-mk commented Apr 5, 2017

moving it to current milestone

@cadavre
Copy link
Contributor

cadavre commented Apr 19, 2017

As a default behaviour:
Always split widget widths equally, i.e. for two fields – 50% + 50%.

Optional:
Additional information from API about how to layout widgets – in what proportion. I.e. percentage or via flex like "1-3-4".

@damianprzygodzki
Copy link
Contributor

damianprzygodzki commented Apr 20, 2017

Shouldn't we close it? Nothing to fix here and possible discussion should be moved to lookup revamp issue #600

@teosarca
Copy link
Member

i think we shall implement on of cadavre's suggestions. I just need to get to it.

@damianprzygodzki
Copy link
Contributor

Still it is a case of new version of lookup, possible duplicate.

@teosarca
Copy link
Member

Ok, then i am closing it and the work shall be done on #600.
(for this task, check the "Layouting" chapter)

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.