Discussion Widget Doesn't Appear with a Complex trunk+discussion
Not sure if i'm understanding the first part, but hard-formated cards can't have comments because they can't be edited, and even if they could the content would never show. That's why in so many places you see +discussion cards.
Is e+*rform hard? If it's soft, then the content of the tform was dumped into "Gerry's Questions+e" and is not being updated when you edit the tform. Make e+*rform hard and it should fix it.
I meant as a second plus, as Gerry_s_Questions+e+discussion. If you look at the example, it has this plus card, but it doesn't show with a comment box where I transclude in the hard form. Do I maybe need a different view option on it?
--Gerry Gleason.....Tue Sep 29 09:36:45 -0700 2009
On the other part, I have a Cardtype, FAQ_Category that is used as the "list" of cards tagged with that category. Because that was already fixed, I couldn't add anything to that card, so I added an "extension" that is a right tag: "+e" +e -> soft template of type Category_eType (meaning "extension type" in my language here).
That type also has a hard +*tform, and it doesn't seem to want to use it. It loads that template into the +*rform when I created it with the type Category_eType.
I know it is a bit convoluted, maybe I'm doing it the hard way.
--Gerry Gleason.....Tue Sep 29 09:41:26 -0700 2009
You wrote, "Do I maybe need a different view option on it?"
Yup, open view (see comments).
--John Abbe.....Tue Sep 29 22:45:52 -0700 2009
Ok, I think I get the comments issue, and can deal, but I think the second thing is still at issue. Should I rename the issue maybe?
--Gerry Gleason.....Sun Oct 04 04:57:22 -0700 2009
yeah, it might be worth a separate ticket for that issue. I don't think it currently works to set a hard tform via a soft rform. Basically I think the issue comes from this chunk of code in templating.rb:
def template(name)
right_template(name) || type_template(name) || default_template
end
I think this used to be different, and if I remember correctly, this is exactly what we want in some contexts. So we shouldn't hack a "fix" right away, but if this pattern is important, we should probably ticket it.
In your context, though, why not just use a hard rform? Are there other places where you want this to be a type but not +e?
--Ethan McCutchen.....Mon Oct 05 16:34:24 -0700 2009
much of this is going to be overhauled in round two of our set (fka pattern) cards. Importantly, all of the overrides will be explicit in the settings.
--Ethan McCutchen.....Mon Dec 07 12:58:27 -0800 2009