You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If a transition path is created by stringing ETEngine scenario IDs, it does not have to be the case that all scenarios contain the same inputs. If one scenario does not have a certain input, while the other does, the following happens:
For 2030 the value of the housing stock sliders is blue/available and can be clicked directly. For 2040 and 2050 it is grey/unavailable.
This seems to be an explicit design choice. One of our clients asked us to change it. The suggested change is that a slider becomes available for all scenarios if it has been set for at least one scenario in the transition path. @ChaelKruip I don't see an issue with this suggested enhancement. Do you agree?
@noracato this issue is an enhancement at the moment, so there is no explicit priority.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If a transition path is created by stringing ETEngine scenario IDs, it does not have to be the case that all scenarios contain the same inputs. If one scenario does not have a certain input, while the other does, the following happens:
For 2030 the value of the housing stock sliders is blue/available and can be clicked directly. For 2040 and 2050 it is grey/unavailable.
This seems to be an explicit design choice. One of our clients asked us to change it. The suggested change is that a slider becomes available for all scenarios if it has been set for at least one scenario in the transition path. @ChaelKruip I don't see an issue with this suggested enhancement. Do you agree?
@noracato this issue is an enhancement at the moment, so there is no explicit priority.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: