419660 - New custom fields not listed in "3.10. Custom Fields"

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Bugzilla :: Documentation, defect)

Description

[Frédéric Buclin]

We implemented textarea, calendar and multi-select fields in 3.2. We should list them here: http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/html/custom-fields.html

Comment 1

[Frédéric Buclin]

Currently, section 3.10.1 has:

"The "Add a new custom field" link permits you to add a new field which can be either a free text box or a drop down menu. More field types will be available in future releases."

Maybe having a real list would make it clearer, with a quick description of each field.

Comment 2

[Sam Folk-Williams]

Attachment: draft1 of patch

First go at it. Changed/updated some working throughout this section as well as adding the simplelist for field descriptions

Comment 3

[Sam Folk-Williams]

Comment on attachment 306794 [details] [diff] [review]
draft1 of patch

need to fix something here

Comment 4

[Sam Folk-Williams]

Attachment: draft 2

had a problem with a tag - fixed now and it compiles.

Comment 5

[Colin Ogilvie [:cso]]

Typo: Date/Time field thinks it gets a datw instead of a date :) 

Part of me thinks describing the list as "The type of HTML element that this field will be." is wrong. Date/Time is not an HTML element - it's a text box with some JavaScript trickery.

Comment 6

[Frédéric Buclin]

Comment on attachment 306936 [details] [diff] [review]
draft 2

>+              The type of HTML element that this field will be.

I agree with Colin, the wording could be better. Do people really understand what a HTML element is?


>+                   Date/Time: A datw field.

s/datw/date/ as mentioned by Colin already.


>               <emphasis>Is obsolete:</emphasis>
>+              Boolean determines whether or not this field should

Boolean *that* determines...


Everything else looks good to me. r=LpSolit with these comments fixed.

Comment 7

[Sam Folk-Williams]

Attachment: draft 3

Fixed comments, found a couple other things as well. One more sanity check pls.

-Sam

Comment 8

[Frédéric Buclin]

Comment on attachment 307047 [details] [diff] [review]
draft 3

>+    <hint>

<hint> is not defined. Use <tip> as before.


>       <title>Viewing/Editing legal values</title>
>       <para>
>+	There is no limit to how many values a field can have, but each value 

Nit: fix the indentation.

Comment 9

[Sam Folk-Williams]

Attachment: sraft 4

OK found a bunch of tabs in the legal values area and removed those.

Comment 10

[Frédéric Buclin]

Comment on attachment 307051 [details] [diff] [review]
sraft 4

>       <orderedlist>
>         <listitem>
>-	  <para>The value is not used by default for the field.</para>
>+          <para>
>+            The value is not used by default for the field.
>+          </para>
> 	</listitem>
> 
> 	<listitem>
>-	  <para>No bug is currently using this value.</para>
>+          <para>
>+            No bug is currently using this value.
>+          </para>
>         </listitem>
>       </orderedlist>
> 

Let's keep these changes out of this bug. The indentation is wrong anyway, and I don't want to confuse Bonsai with unrelated changes. I will drop this block on checkin. r=LpSolit

Comment 11

[Frédéric Buclin]

Checking in docs/xml/administration.xml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v  <--  administration.xml
new revision: 1.89; previous revision: 1.88
done