Hi, > I agree that it might be unconventional, but it could be a valid scenario > and the test failures are warning that some customer might also get busted > by these changes. Basically what happening it that it's converting the text from the label function to a number and getting zero - not exactly very useful when editing the field.
> For sure, which is why we never tried to fix the non-complex object > scenario. You are welcome to keep trying, but it might be best at this > point to revert and work locally. I've given up, there's at least a dozen places I managed to find and fix, but there's at least one I can't find that's still causing an issue. > IMO, this is a corner case: most folks have complex data objects, Yep agree, however there does seem to be serval other related issues it's uncovered. > Yes they do, so I generally run a subfolder of tests. I do that. > And in this case, if you save away the failures.txt, you > can restore it and run with the -failures option to keep running just > those failures And that, it's just that the DG tests are not broken up into small tests. I'm just reverting and retesting before checking back in. Thanks, Justin
