How to hide the Mandatory field prompt so that we can see the field prompt in popup warning message(
You must provide a value for the field "" to complete the validation.)
when the value is not Provided for this mandatory field . Using HTML tag in 7.5 we can hide the field prompt in request form but we can see the field prompt name under "" in above warning popup message to put the value for this mandatory field in request form.
Note that we are using '!' in description for this field but it doesn't display the field name in popup warning when value is not provided for this mandatory field.
If you have a field that is mandatory for certain situations, hide it unrequired if the rule determines that the field is not required for a certain scenario.
If you have a field mandatory at that point, the message should be shown in full.
If the situation is that this field is always mandatory but you need it to be exempt in certain situations, use rule dependencies to hide and unrequire the field via ui rule logic.
I know that you can hide a field prompt if you start the description of a field with '!' and leave everthing empty after that, but it sems that this now hides the name of the field in the pop-up as well - I haven't tested that.
Either way, in my belief you should optimize the field logic instead of hiding a field that is required.
Thank you for your response. The scenario is to have these fields mandatory in all the Statuses but the field name should not be visible. In PPM 7.5, we achieved this by using the tags <> around the field name. This enabled the rule to popup the field name when the user doesnt input data even though the field name was hidden in the request page.
In PPM 9.1, the tags around the field name doesnt hide it. As a workaround, we are using the ! symbol in the description field to achieve this functionality and it works as expected. However, when the user forgets to update this field, it hides the name of the field in the pop-up message as well.
it kinda eludes me why I would make a field prompt invisible to a user but at the same time make it required for him to fill. It somehow doesn't make sense.
Since you'll have your reason to do it that way, why don't you populate the field (assuming there are either single or multi-value validations) FOR the user using a rule that enters values in dependency of other field(s) values. this way he / she can forget all he / she wants, the field will be autopopulated.
Surely you can raise an ER but to be honest, I'm not sure if using the ! to hide the description and name of a field is a design that can be built up upon..
I agree with you, Dirk. That was my first question too. I am not sure about the reason why it was implemented that way. The fields I am referring in this case are Radio Buttons (Yes/No). I am consulting with the user to display the field names.
I can give you the update that it was logged under ITG 6, is in status ‘new’ and with the age it has, implementation is highly unlikely.
A request of required fields with hidden prompts, if the field is not filled in on submit, the error message that says that the "" field requires an entry. Is there any way for this message to show the prompt that is hidden instead of nothing("")?
Since you cannot log your email against the notification list of the CR to raise customer base volume, I agree that a new ER would make sense. On the other hand, you might want to log a ticket in which you ask the question on whether this issue is per design or a non-followed up defect that SHOULD work.
Alex, if you DO log a case against this issue, ping me when it’s open and ask it to be assigned to me since we discussed it in the forum – I’ll then try to follow up ;-)