-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
Bug with Checklist Order #2
Comments
I experience the same thing. |
As a temporary work around you can make step 1, 2, 3 step 01, 02, 03, etc. It's not perfect and doesn't solve the other user's issue, but it might help some. |
Unfortunately that won´t work. I use 10.01, 10.02, ... etc and it still won´t work. |
The application auto assigns the step number as "1" and not "01," not the user. The user can only arrange the order using the interface. The only work around available, until this is fixed, is to intentionally put your intended steps out of sequence. This is, obviously, not ideal as it leads to unnecessary confusion, mistakes, and frustrated employees when building and auditing lengthy or complex inspections. |
has anyone found a fix for this? |
For me this seemed to only be an issue on mobile devices. The variable Sequence is being sorted as a string as opposed to as a number. The Sequence field in the database is a number but I am unsure how to make sure it is a number the Sequence variable as well. My fix was to cast the variable as a number in the sort function. I had to do this in 2 or 3 locations in the app. Here is one location... |
I am attempting to implement the Inspection App to manage equipment audits at a film/video production services office at a university.
The Checklist Order has an issue where if there are 10 or more Steps the sequence sorts out of order for the person who is completing an Audit. For example, Step 1 is followed by Steps 10, 11, 12... If there are 20 or more steps, Step 2 is followed by Steps 21, 22, 23... If there are 9 or less steps the sequence's order remains correct. Many of my checklists end up looking like this:
Step:
This causes the audit checklist flow to be lost unless the person who builds it is aware of the issue and purposely arranges the steps out of order, to offset this issue, when managing inspections. Attached are examples another user, who is also experiencing this same issue, shared on the Microsoft website:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: