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
I expect the two above lines to return the same values, i.e. all 'q' values of orifices, however the first line returns all 'lines' instead of the subset orifices.
Instead I have to call get_filtered_field_value('q') to get the same result. It seems counter-intuitive to not apply the orifices filter in the above example. This can be confusing for new users.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I agree. To me this seems more like bug. I guess that calling get_field_value() directly bypasses the filter that is defined as a property on the lines object. Maybe the get_field_value() method should be private in the first place. I'll check how the mechanism works to see how we can make field retrievals explicit.
It can be confusing when accessing data from a specific structure, the filter is not applied by default. For example:
I expect the two above lines to return the same values, i.e. all 'q' values of orifices, however the first line returns all 'lines' instead of the subset orifices.
Instead I have to call
get_filtered_field_value('q')
to get the same result. It seems counter-intuitive to not apply theorifices
filter in the above example. This can be confusing for new users.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: