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

Way to hide repeat header for non-relevant repeat #597

Closed
ebruchez opened this issue Nov 19, 2012 · 6 comments
Closed

Way to hide repeat header for non-relevant repeat #597

ebruchez opened this issue Nov 19, 2012 · 6 comments

Comments

@ebruchez
Copy link
Collaborator

The scenario is a repeat where all elements are marked as non-relevant.

Now, the repeat control itself is considered non-relevant if either:

  • it binds to no item (no iterations)
  • all of its items are non-relevant

So the issue here is: how can we make a distinction?

grid.xbl points to the repeat sequence $repeat-sequence. With this and the relevant() function, we could detect this case and hide the headers.

However, it's not perfect: if the repeat has no iterations, then what should be done?

This might point to using a visible attribue on fr:grid, to clearly control the visibility aspect only. This could also of course apply to plain (non-repeated) grids.

Sample form:

https://gist.github.com/4112819

@ghost ghost assigned ebruchez Nov 19, 2012
@mkooloos
Copy link

mkooloos commented Oct 7, 2013

Added a visibility-rule to all the items in the repeat and also to the repeat-grid itself, but it's still showing the header. Would expect the header to be hidden also. Not sure if this is the same issue..

@ebruchez
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ebruchez commented Oct 7, 2013

@mkooloos Yes that's probably the same issue.

@ebruchez
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Another way is to do what we do for repeated sections in 4.5: add an enclosing element. Therefore the grid and its iterations can have independent properties.

The trick will be to make this backward compatible.

@ebruchez
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Closing this one as #635 is the solution that we have chosen.

@ebruchez ebruchez removed this from the Review milestone Jun 25, 2014
@ebruchez ebruchez added this to the 4.8 milestone Oct 6, 2014
@ebruchez
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ebruchez commented Oct 6, 2014

Reopening as this is a user-facing issue, while #635 is an internal or data format issue.

@ebruchez ebruchez reopened this Oct 6, 2014
@ebruchez
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ebruchez commented Oct 6, 2014

And marking it as fixed with 3e69d6b.

@ebruchez ebruchez closed this as completed Oct 6, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants