web client: MARC editor doesn't remember the last editor used

[Kathy Lussier]

In the xul client, if I choose to use the flat text editor, either when editing MARC or authority records, the client remembers this selection and automatically retrieves the flat text editor on subsequent use of the interface.

In the web client, the client forgets that I used the flat text editor, and I need to select it again.

The web client DOES appear to remember use of the stack subfields option.

[Andrea Neiman (aneiman)]

Confirmed 2.12

[Cesar V (cesardv)]

Added a fix for this here:

http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/cesardv/lp1668314-webstaff_make_marc_flatEditor_checkbox_sticky

The FlatText Editor checkbox preference/setting should now be remembered once clicked.

[Josh Stompro (u-launchpad-stompro-org)]

Signoff Branch at: user/stompro/lp1668314-webstaff_make_marc_flatEditor_checkbox_sticky_signoff

http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=working/Evergreen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/user/stompro/lp1668314-webstaff_make_marc_flatEditor_checkbox_sticky_signoff

I tested this on a 7/18/2017 version of master and it appears to work just fine.

Once I check the flat text editor it stays selected when:
  1. Moving from record to record in the selection list.
  2. Starting a new search with new items.
  3. Logging out and logging in , same browser and workstation name.
  4. Logging out and logging in, same browser, different workstation name.

Switching browsers results in the setting being reset, which makes sense, looks like the setting is stored in hatch, which falls back to browser local storage. I didn't test using hatch.

There is/was a needstest tag on this, but I don't know if that is for needing someone to test it, or for needing a live test written for it. Is it even possible to test browser storage/hatch with a live test? I'm going to assume that I'm filling the requirements of the needstest tag in this case.

Josh

[Galen Charlton (gmc)]

Pushed to master and rel_2_12. Thanks, Cesar and Josh!

(The needstest bit just stemmed from some uncertainly about the use of that tag... which hadn't been really documented. But upshot: use needtest if you are review a pull request and think it needs a test plan or unit tests; it's not a _request_ for testing, which is implicit when one adds the pullrequest tag).