https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #7 from James Forrester <[email protected]> --- [Moved from bug 60358 discussion.] (In reply to Helder from bug 60358 comment #10) > (In reply to James Forrester from bug 60358 comment #9) > > (In reply to Helder from bug 60358 comment #8) > > > (In reply to James Forrester from bug 60358 comment #6) > > > > (In reply to Ricordisamoa from bug 60358 comment #5) > > > > > or a set of fields may be mutually exclusive (and yet one of them > > > > > would > > > > > be required). > > > > > > > > That doesn't make sense. "Required" means "the template will die > > > > horribly if > > > > you don't include this". It is *not* a "we'd like you to fill this in" – > > > > that's what "suggested" is for. Most templates will have no 'required' > > > > fields. > > > > > > It seems perfectly valid for a template to require that "either A or B be > > > provided" and the user should be able to delete one of them if it is not > > > needed. > > > > This feels like a pretty edge case (and suggests that we should consider > > whether the template should be re-written to be less anti-human); maybe file > > a TemplateData bug to ask for a way to express this relationship? > > This kind of relationship between parameters was requested on bug 50407. Well, as I see it, this bug only asks for param-level relationships – if A also B; if C not D; etc. Should we extend it for shared-param relationships (exactly one of A, B and C are required; D is an alias for E if F is set but is an alias for G if F is not set; …), or should we create a new bug? (BTW, this feels like a potentially ever-expanding system could be created, and we'd probably say this adds too much complexity for the value.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
