Could somebody else please have a look at the sf bug page for this one, and see if they have any other possible solutions that could be used for this bug? I'll give 12 hours before I work on it.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Robin Johnson wrote:
Could somebody else please have a look at the sf bug page for this one, and see if they have any other possible solutions that could be used for this bug? I'll give 12 hours before I work on it.
How does this patch look?
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Robin Johnson wrote:
Could somebody else please have a look at the sf bug page for this one, and see if they have any other possible solutions that could be used for this bug? I'll give 12 hours before I work on it.
How does this patch look?
It looks like it should work, just test it and check it in to CVS if it works fine. (I'm getting ready to go to a party)
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Robin Johnson wrote:
It looks like it should work, just test it and check it in to CVS if it works fine. (I'm getting ready to go to a party)
Actually, here's a better patch. Instead of just rejecting an entered length, it puts "N/A" in place of the text input.
It tested okay, so it seems alright to apply. Feel free to verify this, somebody please.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
Actually, here's a better patch. Instead of just rejecting an entered length, it puts "N/A" in place of the text input.
Actually, that "N/A" is not what we always want, as if the field is one of the data types with the problem, and the user wants to change it to a field that does accept a length specifier, then he can't. So I've accepted your original patch and checked it into CVS.
It tested okay, so it seems alright to apply. Feel free to verify this, somebody please.
All done.
-
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Robin Johnson