[Isomorphic]

We've committed a narrow fix for validOperators to work with both the undocumented and documented formats, for 12.1. This commit didn't quite make the daily build deadline, so you want tomorrow's (Thursday's) build.

For 13.1 we plan to make both formats work for all multiple:true fields.

[stonebranch2]

Thank you,
For 12.1, we have multiple:true fields that are impacted. Will your fix apply to those?
Thanks,
Jeremey

[Isomorphic]

How do you mean?

To clarify, the only field involved here is validOperators - it didn't actually support the documented XML format, but an undocumented format happened to work (which you chanced upon). So we fixed it, and then the fix broke your undocumented usage, and now we've modified how that one field is processed so that both the documented and undocumented format will work. No other fields are affected.

[stonebranch2]

I just don't know what you mean by "For 13.1 we plan to make both formats work for all multiple:true fields.".

We have fields, designated "multiple:true", that use <validOperators>.

For example:

<field name="xxxx" foreignKey="xxx.xxx" displayField="xxxx" type="text" multiple="true" length="2048">
            <validOperators>isNull</validOperators>
            <validOperators>notNull</validOperators>
            <validOperators>iContains</validOperators>
            <validOperators>iNotContains</validOperators>
</field>

I assume for 12.1, with the next build, will work?

Thanks

[Isomorphic]

Oh, we see where the confusion is coming from. You see, we actually use DataSources called Component Schema to describe our own components. Specifically, the XML format for defining DataSources is expressed as a DataSource. In that DataSource, the field "validOperators" is declared and it is considered a multiple:true field because it has an array value.

As far as having multiple:true fields in your application DataSources, that's not relevant to how XML for validOperators is parsed - totally different layer. So nothing to worry about there.

[stonebranch2]

:) Thank you for the clarification.