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

dev/core#553: Creating new event takes value from default value not from saved template for custom fields #14063

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 24, 2019

Conversation

monishdeb
Copy link
Member

Overview

When creating a new event using a template the new event screen is taking the default values directly from the custom fields, and not from what's saved in the event template.

Steps to replicate:

  1. Create a custom field for Events
  2. Set default value say 'abc' for that custom field
  3. Create/Edit an event template and save with custom field value say 'def'
  4. Now create a new event using that event template

Issue - Custom field is set to default value 'abc' instead of 'def'

Before

before

After

after

@civibot
Copy link

civibot bot commented Apr 16, 2019

(Standard links)

@civibot civibot bot added the master label Apr 16, 2019
@pradpnayak
Copy link
Contributor

I tested this and it works fine

Before:
Before

After:
After

GOOD TO MERGE!

@yashodha
Copy link
Contributor

yashodha commented Apr 24, 2019

@monishdeb @pradpnayak tested this, works as expected and safe to merge.

@yashodha yashodha merged commit b5a59db into civicrm:master Apr 24, 2019
@scoobird
Copy link
Contributor

Hi folks. In dev/core/issues/553 I identified a possible regression with saving values to custom fields in events. Were you not able to replicate that?

@yashodha
Copy link
Contributor

@scoobird yes, thanks for pointing that out.

@monishdeb can you please revert this as this is not respecting the new input values

@eileenmcnaughton
Copy link
Contributor

@monishdeb @pradpnayak @scoobird - @yashodha created the revert commit & I merged it - It would be good to get it re-fixed but I agreed with @yashodha's analysis that a quick revert is the right first step since this was only just merged

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants