mirror of
https://github.com/quasar/Quasar.git
synced 2026-04-25 15:25:59 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #412] Save Changes Dialog Displays without Valid Change #204
Labels
No labels
bug
bug
cant-reproduce
discussion
duplicate
easy
enhancement
help wanted
improvement
invalid
need more info
pull-request
question
wont-add
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/Quasar#204
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @yankejustin on GitHub (Nov 7, 2015).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/quasar/Quasar/issues/412
Currently, the (Client) Builder Form detects a change to settings and will ask to save changes to apply the current settings from the form to the XML file.
The issue in the title is visible if a user clicks to change an option (such as a checkbox) then reverts the change made (so it was the original option again).
Perhaps we should actually compare the values on the Form to the settings XML file.
@yankejustin commented on GitHub (Nov 7, 2015):
I'm going to take care of this.
@bitterypaul commented on GitHub (May 14, 2016):
Can i take care of this?
@bitterypaul commented on GitHub (May 14, 2016):
`
`
I ain't proficient in c#, this code might me not optimized or not be according to a proper coding style, but does the trick. Checked in release build. ready to merge.Just wanted to check your acceptance before sending pull request(I don't want to clutter the pull request system with code not compliant to your coding style)
@yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 18, 2016):
Sorry, I no longer have the time for contributions to Quasar these days. You certainly can add this. 😃
@yankejustin commented on GitHub (May 18, 2016):
The thing about your change is that, yes there is a better way to do it. But the code you showed follows a pretty good code standard and it works 100% of the time. So in my opinion that is perfectly acceptable code and should be added now. 👍
If anyone wants to make a better system for it, then by all means they can optimize it later!