View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|15892||Bug reports||Documentation||public||2020-02-18 15:20||2021-04-08 11:22|
|Summary||15892: List with comment isn't marked as answered if comment is missing|
|Description||I'm not sure if this is the expected behavior, therefore I'm putting it into Documentation. When choosing from a List with comment (type O) Question without filling the comment field, the corresponding survey page's indexItem.coreClass still includes the `index-item-unanswered` class.|
If this is how it's supposed to be, please document the intended behaviour in https://manual.limesurvey.org/Question_type_-_List_with_comment.
If not, this bug should be moved to another category.
Relevant files (I couldn't grasp the logic, though, especially in the LimeExpressionManager singleton):
- application/helpers/questionIndexHelper.php, line 148
- application/helpers/expressions/em_manager_helper.php, possibly around line 6650?? (sidenote: this file is so huge that it apparently doesn't get indexed by the Github search, which makes debugging quite arduous)
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|Complete LimeSurvey version number (& build)||4.1.5+200217|
|I will donate to the project if issue is resolved||No|
|Database & DB-Version||Postgres 11.5|
|Server OS (if known)|
|Webserver software & version (if known)|
A sample survey (lss file) please ?
And about «marked as answered» you mean by class name ? Class name where (screenshot can be cool).
Thanks for your response! Here's a minimal example, using the vanilla template. After answering Question 1 without typing a comment, Group 1 is still marked as unanswered.
I'm not sure if I understand your second question correctly. Please let me know if you need anything further.
limesurvey_survey_492215_TypeOtest.lss (23,985 bytes)
|Also, I got feedback from a customer today that this behavior actually confuses their customers. IMO, the question should be considered as answered if an option was chosen and the comment field left empty.|
Ah OK : with index ...
We have same «issue» with any question in fact ...
For example Multiple non mandatory text : you fill all, index-item-unanswered too ... I don't think we can «fix» it and work in all situation.
|True that. I think it should be consistent with what's considered valid for mandatory questions, though. If a mandatory question is considered as answered (i.e., the survey can be submitted), the visual presentation should indicate exactly that. At the moment it seems there are two different logics for validating mandatory questions and the presentation – or am I mistaken here?|
About mandatory : my opinion : if the group have error : must be shown as invalid.
> At the moment it seems there are two different logics for validating mandatory questions and the presentation – or am I mistaken here?
@DenisChenu we're still facing this issue.
I think it needs a design decision: Should the anwered/unanswered state reflect the validity state of the survey/page? For me, this would make perfect sense: The user gets feedback whether the page is ready for submission or something's missing. Like it is now, the unanswered state is quite confusing, since it marks a validly filled page as unanwered.
|By page, I mean the representation of a survey group on a page, sorry if that wasn't clear.|
Ad mandatory vs. unanswered logic.
In https://github.com/LimeSurvey/LimeSurvey/blob/274ee87cadb60e92a6ba3e48b3b17fc511b473af/application/helpers/expressions/em_manager_helper.php#L6196 the comment subquestion is explicitly removed from the mandatory validation. In the section below, where the unanswered state is determined, it is handled differently (no separate logic for type O).
I'm happy to contribute a PR if we can agree on harmonizing valid/answered states, please let me know :)
related to the last fix of @gabrieljenik
I think you have a really good idea : show as unanswered must mean : invalid if mandatory (but not mandatory)
|I've created a pull request: https://github.com/LimeSurvey/LimeSurvey/pull/1837|
|Fix committed to master branch: http://bugs.limesurvey.org/plugin.php?page=Source/view&id=31551|
|Thanks to all who contributed! :)|
|2020-02-18 15:20||fabianlehner||New Issue|
|2020-02-19 08:06||DenisChenu||Note Added: 56081|
|2020-02-19 10:34||fabianlehner||File Added: limesurvey_survey_492215_TypeOtest.lss|
|2020-02-19 10:34||fabianlehner||File Added: Screen Shot 2020-02-19 at 10.31.57.png|
|2020-02-19 10:34||fabianlehner||Note Added: 56087|
|2020-02-20 17:01||fabianlehner||Note Added: 56109|
|2020-02-20 17:25||DenisChenu||Note Added: 56111|
|2020-02-20 18:32||fabianlehner||Note Added: 56116|
|2020-02-21 08:21||DenisChenu||Note Added: 56127|
|2020-02-21 08:21||DenisChenu||Note Edited: 56127||View Revisions|
|2021-03-06 08:42||fabianlehner||Note Added: 62808|
|2021-03-06 08:48||fabianlehner||Note Added: 62809|
|2021-03-06 08:57||fabianlehner||Note Added: 62810|
|2021-03-06 10:39||DenisChenu||Relationship added||related to 16776|
|2021-03-06 10:41||DenisChenu||Note Added: 62811|
|2021-04-07 10:24||fabianlehner||Note Added: 63851|
|2021-04-07 15:33||Changeset attached||=> LimeSurvey master 5cb7d0c0|
|2021-04-07 15:33||guest||Note Added: 63853|
|2021-04-07 15:56||ollehar||Assigned To||=> ollehar|
|2021-04-07 15:56||ollehar||Status||new => resolved|
|2021-04-07 15:56||ollehar||Resolution||open => fixed|
|2021-04-08 11:22||fabianlehner||Note Added: 63865|