View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
fonaticalbuyer Guest
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:04 am Post subject: Multi-Win Setting Not Retrospective? |
|
|
Hi Mario,
Re: the Multi-Win value specified in Settings - if a value is changed for pre-existing Multi-Win snipes, the new value of wins doesn't seem to be reflected in the main Scheduled Snipes list.
STEPS TO REPRODUCE:
1) Visit Settings and specify a value of '5' for Group 1, under Multi-Win.
2) Setup some snipes into Group 1 and observe that they show 'Items to Win: 5' in the main Scheduled Bids window.
3) Visit Settings again and specify a new value for Group 1 under Multi-Win (for example; '2' instead of the previous '5')
4) Return to the list of scheduled snipes in Gixen, refresh the browser window or click on the Mirror tab the back to Main to force a refresh.
The number of Multi-Win items in Group 1 remains at the original value of '5' and not '2'.
5) Logging out and back in to Guixen seems to make no difference,.
EXPECTED BEHAVIOR:
Modifying the Multi-Win value for Group 1 should update all existing snipes that are in Group 1 with the new value?
Just wondered if the current way of working may catch people out.
Cheers,
Steve |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fonaticalbuyer Guest
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interestingly though...
Using the previous example, once the value of Multi-Win items in Group 1 is changed from '5' to '2' any **subsequently added snipes** do pickup on the amended Multi-Win value. It's only previously entered snipes in the group which don't take notice of the Multi-Win value when it's changed.
From my limited development knowledge I get why this should be so and also that taking notice or not taking notice of the changed Multi-WIn value isn't a 'bug', it's just open to debate as to how people expect it to operate!
Personally my take on it is that any snipes 'under thge control of a group' should always inherit the Multi-Win value for that group as specified in Settings - if the value is changed then members (Snipes) within the group inherit the change. But as always, debatable!
Anyway as I forgot in my previous post; season's greetings Mario - keep up the excellent work in 2012!
Cheers,
Steve |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mario Site Admin

Joined: 03 Oct 2006 Posts: 7267
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steve, this is exactly why there is a warning on the settings page "Do not change group settings if you have active group snipes, as this may result in an unexpected behaviour." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fonaticalbuyer Guest
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, understood Mario. That wasn't the sort of unexpected I was expecting.
Cheers,
Steve |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gixen Advertisements

|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cupid

Joined: 09 Aug 2007 Posts: 7970 Location: Bristol, UK
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought we agreed that for a Multi Win group with scheduled snipes, the number left to win should be inherited from the existing scheduled snipes in that Group?
Am I remembering incorrectly or has that just not yet been implemented? _________________ Mark |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mario Site Admin

Joined: 03 Oct 2006 Posts: 7267
|
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just checked the code - it's the minimum of the current setting and items-left-to-win value on the outstanding scheduled multi-win snipes in the same group.
So the system as it is right now is fine if you add items to the group that may have already won items. If you change the setting for a particular group, however, it's not fine, especially if you decrease the number of items to be won. If you increase it, it's just ignored and the old value applies until the group is empty. If you decrease it, it's inconsistent. Hence the warning.
I hope what I just explained makes sense? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cupid

Joined: 09 Aug 2007 Posts: 7970 Location: Bristol, UK
|
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah yes, that makes sense, thanks Mario. _________________ Mark |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|