The order number in the get_field() method is now incremental. Inserting fields require a renumbering. For the item_system.get_field() I changed the numbers with groups. 1-19 is general 20-39 network 40-59 virt Etc.
Maybe this can also be done for the profile and distros
Peter
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
On Tue, 5 May 2009 15:46:31 +0200, "Vreman, Peter - Acision" peter.vreman@acision.com wrote:
The order number in the get_field() method is now incremental. Inserting fields require a renumbering. For the item_system.get_field() I changed the numbers with groups. 1-19 is general 20-39 network 40-59 virt Etc.
Maybe this can also be done for the profile and distros
Peter
I would prefer to figure out a way to do this programaticaly rather than having to hard code it, just hadn't gotten that far yet. Currently I'm working on turning the field data into a class so there's a bit more rigid structure there, maybe we'd just create a list of those instead of a hash then? That way we don't have to sort it, just use the list in the order returned by get_fields()
The order number in the get_field() method is now incremental. Inserting fields require a renumbering. For the item_system.get_field() I changed the numbers with groups. 1-19 is general 20-39 network 40-59 virt Etc.
Maybe this can also be done for the profile and distros
Peter
I would prefer to figure out a way to do this programaticaly rather than having to hard code it, just hadn't gotten that far yet. Currently I'm working on turning the field data into a class so there's a bit more rigid structure there, maybe we'd just create a list of those instead of a hash then? That way we don't have to sort it, just use the list in the order returned by get_fields()
I think that a list with name field is the easiest solution.
Peter
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
On Tue, 5 May 2009 16:54:35 +0200, "Vreman, Peter - Acision" peter.vreman@acision.com wrote:
The order number in the get_field() method is now incremental. Inserting fields require a renumbering. For the item_system.get_field() I
changed
the numbers with groups. 1-19 is general 20-39 network 40-59 virt Etc.
Maybe this can also be done for the profile and distros
Peter
I would prefer to figure out a way to do this programaticaly rather than having to hard code it, just hadn't gotten that far yet. Currently I'm working on turning the field data into a class so there's a bit more rigid structure there, maybe we'd just create a list of those instead of a
hash
then? That way we don't have to sort it, just use the list in the order returned by get_fields()
I think that a list with name field is the easiest solution.
I agree.
James Cammarata wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 16:54:35 +0200, "Vreman, Peter - Acision" peter.vreman@acision.com wrote:
The order number in the get_field() method is now incremental. Inserting fields require a renumbering. For the item_system.get_field() I
changed
the numbers with groups. 1-19 is general 20-39 network 40-59 virt Etc.
Maybe this can also be done for the profile and distros
Peter
I would prefer to figure out a way to do this programaticaly rather than having to hard code it, just hadn't gotten that far yet. Currently I'm working on turning the field data into a class so there's a bit more rigid structure there, maybe we'd just create a list of those instead of a
hash
then? That way we don't have to sort it, just use the list in the order returned by get_fields()
I think that a list with name field is the easiest solution.
I agree.
Another point, we do need groups. The web app color coded (or used to) things like "network" together, and later we may want to be able to expand/collapse sections.
I'm not sure how that conflicts with ordering, but it seems if the function returns a list of lists, with the first list being the group names, and the values being the fields within the group, that solves both the ordering problem and the grouping problem.
The CLI would likely add things alphabetically so it could ignore this.
then? That way we don't have to sort it, just use the list in the
order
returned by get_fields()
I think that a list with name field is the easiest solution.
I agree.
Another point, we do need groups. The web app color coded (or used to) things like "network" together, and later we may want to be able to expand/collapse sections.
I'm not sure how that conflicts with ordering, but it seems if the function returns a list of lists, with the first list being the group names, and the values being the fields within the group, that solves both the ordering problem and the grouping problem.
The CLI would likely add things alphabetically so it could ignore this.
There is already a tdclass field that is used. You can already see it working in "/cobbler_web/system/genedit" and "cobbler_web/profile/genedit"
Peter
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
cobbler-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org