Hi,
I have a listgrid based editor in my application with saveLocally=true set to allow complex local edit operations. As the grid is edited new records are manually added as local copies and saved afterwards in a custom network operation.
This approach has worked ok since 2.x branch and a problem appeared with 3.1d. When adding new records to the grid all the pending edits from the grid disappear with these warnings on console:
By looking at the code which discards the edits it seems that the ListGrid below tries to remap the edit rows by a set of fields instead of the primary key (which is by design missing on added rows) - it does not find the record and discards all the edits. When looking at the warning the "otherId" and "orderVal" fields are correct but the "_selection_45_" attribute in the derived "compound primary key" probably messes up the lookup. This attribute is generated automatically somewhere behind the scenes - probably has something to do with list grid's selection tracking.
Any idea where this _selection_45 attribute comes from and is this a bug in the underlying code ? As far as I understand this attribute should not be a part of the derived set of primary key fields for locally saved "records" without primary key.
Using 3.1D LGPL nightly NIGHTLY-2012-10-12.
I have a listgrid based editor in my application with saveLocally=true set to allow complex local edit operations. As the grid is edited new records are manually added as local copies and saved afterwards in a custom network operation.
This approach has worked ok since 2.x branch and a problem appeared with 3.1d. When adding new records to the grid all the pending edits from the grid disappear with these warnings on console:
Code:
WARN:Log:findByKeys: passed record does not have a value for key field 'id' ListGrid:isc_CommitableRemoveListGrid_2:Record:{__ref: {GWT Java Obj}, otherId: "-110", orderVal: 25, _selection_45: false}, is no longer present in this List.<br>Clearing edit values for this record.
Any idea where this _selection_45 attribute comes from and is this a bug in the underlying code ? As far as I understand this attribute should not be a part of the derived set of primary key fields for locally saved "records" without primary key.
Using 3.1D LGPL nightly NIGHTLY-2012-10-12.
Comment