Hi, I didn't do much in that area, so cannot comment on the specifics, but I think only handling the hidden/ignored states when the function is evaluated should be fine. If I understand correctly we already do similar things in other places, i.e. asking users to call evaluation as part of their code in order to have up-to-date results for functions.
Dominik. On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Greg Woolsey <[email protected]> wrote: > These are not yet implemented, I presume because they need to evaluate > auto-filter conditions on cells, and hide rows as needed? > > This came up in a conversation with Vaadin over the conditional formatting > work I'm doing. > > Anyone have any knowledge of that area, and the existing partial support > for that function? > > That function comes up in a lot of example workbooks, and gets used in > table formulas all the time. Not being able to properly calculate it is > annoying. > > It looks to me like it would be something similar to data validation and > conditional formatting, with the simplification that it doesn't involve any > formula evaluation, just static rule definitions and dynamic cell values. > > The tricky part is keeping the row hidden state in sync, I suppose. > > Would it work to evaluate the function variations just based on whether the > row is hidden or not, and assume if values are changing, someone who cares > is keeping the filter evaluations and row states in sync external to the > function? >
