Just a note that there appears to be an issue with high level ASCII (or perhaps UNICODE) characters in file upload field labels.
Use case: A form with a résumé upload feature. The upload field is named Resume (no accents above e's) and the uploaded file is attached to the resulting email properly. When the upload field label is changed to Résumé (with accents above e's) the uploaded file is not successfully attached to the resulting email. Changing the label back to Resume (no accents) avoids the issue.
This is not a current concern of ours since we have moved on, but I didn't see any other bug posts regarding this and wanted it to be noted.
Using Chronoforms 4.0 RC1.8 (17 Apr 2011) on Joomla 1.6.2.
Thanks,
Brad =)
Use case: A form with a résumé upload feature. The upload field is named Resume (no accents above e's) and the uploaded file is attached to the resulting email properly. When the upload field label is changed to Résumé (with accents above e's) the uploaded file is not successfully attached to the resulting email. Changing the label back to Resume (no accents) avoids the issue.
This is not a current concern of ours since we have moved on, but I didn't see any other bug posts regarding this and wanted it to be noted.
Using Chronoforms 4.0 RC1.8 (17 Apr 2011) on Joomla 1.6.2.
Thanks,
Brad =)
Hi Brad,
There shouldn't be a problem with labels (and I don't' recall seeing one reported). There will be a problem with input names or ids where only [a-zA-Z0-9] and underscore are permitted (mostly as in the HTML spec but ChronoForms disallows dash too.)
Bob
There shouldn't be a problem with labels (and I don't' recall seeing one reported). There will be a problem with input names or ids where only [a-zA-Z0-9] and underscore are permitted (mostly as in the HTML spec but ChronoForms disallows dash too.)
Bob
Agreed, but as the solution was to take the accented characters out of the label, I don't know what else to say. =) There were never any special characters in the field name or ID. A mystery.
Thanks,
Brad =)
Thanks,
Brad =)
Bob, off-topic, can you point me to a ChronoForms changelog? Trying to figure out what is different between RC1.8 and RC1.9.
Thanks,
Brad
Thanks,
Brad
Hi Brad,
Hmmm . . . there isn't one to point to.
I ran a file compare between the two versions and (from memory) by far the majority of the changes were bug fixes. Mostly small things that had been missed in the upgrade to Joomla! 1.6 and for the datepicker option handling.
There were a couple of new actions - you find those listed here. And a new element for Header text.
That's all I can remember right now. Was there something particular you had in mind?
Bob
Hmmm . . . there isn't one to point to.
I ran a file compare between the two versions and (from memory) by far the majority of the changes were bug fixes. Mostly small things that had been missed in the upgrade to Joomla! 1.6 and for the datepicker option handling.
There were a couple of new actions - you find those listed here. And a new element for Header text.
That's all I can remember right now. Was there something particular you had in mind?
Bob
Not specifically. I am running 4 RC1.8 in a production environment (I know, I'm shamed now) and was curious how risky the upgrade to 1.9 would actually be.
Was also curious if 1.9 added back the ability to customize the way rows are displayed (instead of just saying Record #1, Records #2, etc.) when viewing table contents via Show Data.
Was also curious if 1.9 added a CSV or XLS export feature back in.
Both of the above are sorely missed (unless I am overlooking them). =)
Thanks,
Brad
Was also curious if 1.9 added back the ability to customize the way rows are displayed (instead of just saying Record #1, Records #2, etc.) when viewing table contents via Show Data.
Was also curious if 1.9 added a CSV or XLS export feature back in.
Both of the above are sorely missed (unless I am overlooking them). =)
Thanks,
Brad
Hi Brad,
I think the upgrade is safe and helpful (but backup first!!)
I don't think that the record ids are there (but not a feature I use).
The CSV EXport isn't there either - but I have a very flexible CSV Export action here. If I say so myself it's much more versatile than the CFv3 export.
Bob
I think the upgrade is safe and helpful (but backup first!!)
I don't think that the record ids are there (but not a feature I use).
The CSV EXport isn't there either - but I have a very flexible CSV Export action here. If I say so myself it's much more versatile than the CFv3 export.
Bob
This topic is locked and no more replies can be posted.