Skip to content
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

Change behaviour of arrows in motion-details #2926

Closed
Elblinator opened this issue Oct 20, 2023 · 0 comments
Closed

Change behaviour of arrows in motion-details #2926

Elblinator opened this issue Oct 20, 2023 · 0 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@Elblinator
Copy link
Member

Current behaviour:
Example behaviour: If you open the amendment-list (you only see the amendments), open a detail view and then switch in between amendments via the arrows. The arrows lead you through every motion not just the amendments.
The same happens if some filters are selected.

Reproduction:
In a meeting:

  1. have several motions and some of these motions need amendments
  2. open the amendment-list view
  3. navigate to a detail-view
  4. use the arrows to switch in between amendments
  5. you will then switch between all motions not just amendments

Affected filters:

  • states from workflows
  • recommendations from workflows

Whole amendment-list and every motion-block is affected (you skip through more than amendments/motion-block-motions)

The activated filters in motion-list, amendment-list and motion-blocks-list are independent from each other !in the displayed list!, but the arrows all use the activated filters from the motion-list.
The arrows have to use the filters from the correct list.

Because the arrows use the filters from the motion-list the special filter from the amendment-list ("motion") cannot be tested

Wanted behaviour:
If you use the arrows to switch in between motions, you should only switch in between the motions which were last seen in your list

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants