Skip to content

GH Issue 1583: edit inline lookup fields don't fire onBlur - #2080

Merged
XingY merged 9 commits into
developfrom
fb_issue1583
Sep 29, 2026
Merged

XingY merged 9 commits into
developfrom
fb_issue1583

Conversation

@XingY

@XingY XingY commented Sep 25, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Rationale

  • A disabled react-select renders a non-focusable dummy input, so an initial "autoFocus" is dropped while the control, resulting in blur events not fired.
  • Time edit-inline field never set initial value on init, causing blur to save blank value.

Related Pull Requests

Changes

GH Issue 1512: fetchQueries should not includeUserQueries

@cnathe cnathe left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Change looks good for the EditInlineField case (GH1583). I'll wait to approve until the changes discussed for GH1512 are made.

Also, were there any tests added for this EditInlineField case? I think there are some SM workflow job template custom field tests that could likely be updated to check this type of behavior.

@XingY XingY changed the title GH Issue 1583 & 1512 GH Issue 1583: edit inline lookup fields don't file onBlur Sep 27, 2026
@XingY XingY changed the title GH Issue 1583: edit inline lookup fields don't file onBlur GH Issue 1583: edit inline lookup fields don't fire onBlur Sep 27, 2026
@XingY

XingY commented Sep 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Change looks good for the EditInlineField case (GH1583). I'll wait to approve until the changes discussed for GH1512 are made.

Also, were there any tests added for this EditInlineField case? I think there are some SM workflow job template custom field tests that could likely be updated to check this type of behavior.

I've separated work for GH1512 to a separate branch now that its scope is bigger. SMProWorkflowCustomFieldsWithTemplateTest has been updated to cover Time and Lookup field blur.

@XingY
XingY requested a review from cnathe September 27, 2026 18:56

@cnathe cnathe left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These changes look good and I verified the behavior for the lookup field and the time field type.

One note: I tested for other field types and they do retain their value in this "click to edit, don't change anything, and blur" the edit inline field. However, the integer custom field and the job start date and due date fields all do call the updateJob API in this scenario. That can probably be split out as a separate issue as it seems unrelated to these changes.

@XingY

XingY commented Sep 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

These changes look good and I verified the behavior for the lookup field and the time field type.

One note: I tested for other field types and they do retain their value in this "click to edit, don't change anything, and blur" the edit inline field. However, the integer custom field and the job start date and due date fields all do call the updateJob API in this scenario. That can probably be split out as a separate issue as it seems unrelated to these changes.

Fixed the extra updateJob api call for date/numeric field types.

@XingY
XingY merged commit 2d22f11 into develop Sep 29, 2026
3 checks passed
@XingY
XingY deleted the fb_issue1583 branch September 29, 2026 19:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants