-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 531
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
Group are not flexible enough #259
Comments
The current solution was the easiest way to implement it. |
This would be a nice feature, you could potentially set the group tag and className so you're confined to
|
I really need this |
PR #339 adds "styleClasses" to groups. This allows you to add a "styleClasses" property to your groups, the same way you add it for fields. Coupled with the "tag" property, you can now have groups defined as Sample Use
Sample Schema
|
Fixed in #484 |
Hello @icebob @jmverges @dflock
I'm late to the party and I didn't really follow the work on groups.
Since working on #257 , I'm exposed to how group work and I have noticed a flaw in the current design.
I can't alternate freely between single field and group.
The only possibility is
fields -> groups
. I can't do the inverse (ex.groups -> fields
) or anything else (ex.field -> group -> field -> group -> group -> field
)My goal is not to spit on everyone hard work, but I wonder if they can be a better more flexible way to do this.
Why a
type: group
was not used ?Thanks for the feedback.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: