original bugid: #6906
<mm:relatednodescontainer type="news' role="posrel">
<mm:sortorder field="posrel.pos" />
<mm:relatednodes>
<mm:changed>
*** does not work properly ***
</mm:changed>
</mm:relatednodes>
</mm:relatednodescontainer>
original bugid: #6906
<mm:relatednodescontainer type="news' role="posrel">
<mm:sortorder field="posrel.pos" />
<mm:relatednodes>
<mm:changed>
*** does not work properly ***
</mm:changed>
</mm:relatednodes>
</mm:relatednodescontainer>
as oppsoed to doing this with a <mm:related> tag
If you list these with a related list, and set sortorder to 'posrel.pos', the <mm:changed> tag will trigger thrice: one teh first 1, on the first 2, and on the 3.
.
If you list these with a relatednodes list, and set sortorder to 'posrel.pos', the <mm:changed> tag will trigger five times: once for every record.
Maybe that is 'correct' behavior, but it is not very intuitive.
Pierre van Rooden added a comment - 2009-07-31 16:58 Say, you have posrels with 1, 1, 2, 2, and 3.
If you list these with a related list, and set sortorder to 'posrel.pos', the <mm:changed> tag will trigger thrice: one teh first 1, on the first 2, and on the 3.
.
If you list these with a relatednodes list, and set sortorder to 'posrel.pos', the <mm:changed> tag will trigger five times: once for every record.
Maybe that is 'correct' behavior, but it is not very intuitive.
Michiel Meeuwissen added a comment - 2009-07-31 17:04 Any how, I don't realy care how it is supposed to work. If find mm:changed confusing anyhow. If you allow me, I simply assign it to yourself :-)
The issue is that the field 'posrel,pos' is not available for mm:change to check when you use a relatednodes list (because it is not in the resultset).
So it triggers always.
Pierre van Rooden added a comment - 2009-07-31 17:12 The issue is that the field 'posrel,pos' is not available for mm:change to check when you use a relatednodes list (because it is not in the resultset).
So it triggers always.
Yes probably, but what can we do. it will be quite involving to change that. On the other hand I do'nt think the current behaviour actually wrong. I think mm:changed on nodelist is simply useless.
Michiel Meeuwissen added a comment - 2009-07-31 17:24 Yes probably, but what can we do. it will be quite involving to change that. On the other hand I do'nt think the current behaviour actually wrong. I think mm:changed on nodelist is simply useless.
I think indeed it will be quite a shift, 'nodelist' must contain some kind of combined node or so. To involving for a minor release. Rescheduled for 2.0.
Michiel Meeuwissen added a comment - 2009-07-31 17:25 I think indeed it will be quite a shift, 'nodelist' must contain some kind of combined node or so. To involving for a minor release. Rescheduled for 2.0.
Pierre van Rooden added a comment - 2009-08-03 08:52 It is not entirely useless, as long as you use a field in mm:sortorder that mm:changed can access.
Maybe we need to change the documentation.
Bug
Reopened
Major