You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There is currently no way to "group" forms together, this RFC proposes a new property family on the form model which acts the same as the existing family properties on cases and documents. The property helps grouping forms logically e.g. if a form is a newer version of an existing form.
Per default, the value of family should be the form itself. However, if the form is created by copyForm the family should be the source form. There should also be a new filter family for the form graphs.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I like the idea, already for symmetry reasons 👍 What still might be worth a short discussion is the question if we can imagine having "first-class" versioning support for forms, i.e. to take this a little further than just grouping them together.
Hmm, not sure - in other places (cases, documents) the family represents a hierarchy. This would be sliightly different here, thus the wording might get confusing.
I like the idea (though never used copyForm myself) but maybe we can find another word for this?
Also, @czosel I would very much like form versioning. Could be very useful, however it could also open a horrible can of worms that we would then need to deal with
There is currently no way to "group" forms together, this RFC proposes a new property
family
on the form model which acts the same as the existing family properties on cases and documents. The property helps grouping forms logically e.g. if a form is a newer version of an existing form.Per default, the value of
family
should be the form itself. However, if the form is created bycopyForm
thefamily
should be the source form. There should also be a new filterfamily
for the form graphs.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: