Thank you for your post.
I was able to reproduce this behavior in FileMaker Pro 14.0.2 (Advanced) on both Mac OS X 10.10.5 and Windows 7 Professional. To reproduce I performed these steps:
1. Created "test.fmp12"
2. Entered Layout Mode
3. Placed a Text Object on the layout
4. Set "Hide Object When" with " Get (AccountName) = 'Admin' "
5. Right-Clicked Object and selected "Button Setup" which immediately cleared the "Hide Object When" calculation (When going to browse mode the calculation still worked)
6. Set "Hide Object When" with " Get (AccountName) = 'Admin' " in which case the Text Object now shows two Badges for "Hide Object When"
This does not seem to be an issue in FileMaker Pro 13.
Additionally, I have forwarded a report to Testing and Development for review. When I receive any feedback, I will let you know.
Thank you, TSPigeon.
No, I had never seen it in 13 either.
After you define the object as a button, FileMaker considers the object to be a group. As such, it will preserve the badge for hidden objects but you won't see the hide definition unless you ungroup the object. The reason for the second badge is that you have hidden both the object and the button.
Other programs, such as Photoshop and Illustrator, have palettes that display the hierarchy of grouped objects. Long overdue that we would have something like this whereby we can examine the "members" of a "group".
Anyway, this behavior you describe is considered "normal" by FileMaker. However I think there should be a third way to classify things like this.
In addition to Known Bug and Normal there should be another one called Maybe Normal But Sucks.
I understand what you are saying. However I don't actually define it as a button, I just "accidentally" select "Button Setup" and then cancel it.
I think that's kind of a bug, I didn't really turn it into a button, supposedly, but it's been changed.
Selecting "Undo Group" does fix it. It seems to me that it shouldn't actually be turned into a group until you actually select a button action, not just look at "Do Nothing".
It's interesting to know the cause of the behavior.
Maybe Normal But Still Sucks and Is Also A Bug?
I also would like to be able to step through selected items or hierarchy in a group, like what I've seen in various CAD environments.
Thank you for your responses and patience.
It seems the issue is with the Object Grouping when only clicking Button Setup. In previous versions of FileMaker you could click Button Setup and then back out of the setup without the Grouping occurring.
Waiting for a response as to why or if it is now expected as a design change. When I receive any feedback, I will let you know.
I agree, if you cancel it should not behave as a group.
Thanks, TSPigeon, dburnham!
Maybe it needs a Cancel button, not just a Close X
I know this is unrelated, but it is not the only place where buttons in dialog boxes were deemed un-necessary in FileMaer 14.
In the old Open Remote dialog, there was a REMOVE button to delete a Host that you no longer want in the list.
In the new Launch Center you cannot remove a Host once it has been added.
I've been told that LAN IP's disappear automatically, which is a stupid change, certainly not an improvement for developers who visit with their clients in person, something the FMI engineers probably never do.
And the WAN IP's can only be removed by throwing away your preferences and rebuilding your entire list. Also not something I consider an improvement.
Just saying ...
After Testing and Development reviewed and some history I read on the FileMaker Pro 14 release it seems that this is actually a design change and is now expected behavior. I would submit a suggestion to the Feature Request Form to have this feature changed back.
I am aware of your issues with the Launch Center. It is, though, another change in design and I would also highly recommend submitting a suggestion to the Feature Request Form if you would like these features changed or previous features added back.
I hope this information is of use -let me know if you have further information!
Regarding the thing you call "expected behavior" I could not disagree with you more strongly!
When you create a new tool, in this case the semi-transparent black dialog box that replaces the previous dialog box, you should be aware that no matter how hard you try to get it perfect, it's the developer community that helps you get it right by pointing out obvious flaws that escaped your attention during the engineering phases.
In this case, it seems to me that selecting "Do Nothing" should revert the object to its original ungrouped state, particularly if the number of members of the group is only 1.
I have personally reported other things that could be called "feature requests". For example, when I am defining a Popover object using the new semi-transparent black dialog box, it would be very helpful to be able to give the popover object a name, instead of selecting the popover frame and using the Inspector to give it a name. I accept the idea that this would be a new feature.
But if FileMaker is responsible for breaking something that works -- even with the best of intentions in the design and implementation of something new -- it's unreasonable (and frankly, offensive) to be told that we have to request the repair as a "new feature". There are some new features we have been waiting for since version 7 and 8 and we still don't have them, so I don't know if I will live long enough to see something like this which is now the newest feature request at the end of a very long line.
I also agree with you dburnham. I think we can say there was surely some problems with Quality Insurance Process before releasing FileMaker 14.
And i think we can guess what the cause was. As i red previously here from other people, when there are strong design changes you don't just need from the tester to say if it works or it doesn't, but also things like "what was possible before with old UI you cannot achieve anymore" -- exactly the case on this thread i think.
For doing that correctly, i think FMI would have needed more audience during dev. But due to their actual policy, it was just impossible. Hope they will change it a bit in the future.
And when you wrote "you", i hope TSPigeon will not take it personally but as it should : "FMI", since he is just a messenger. And he doesn't have any other choice than suggest you the Feature Request page in actual state of things.
… and with FMP14!
We all demand FMI to establish some real quality assurance processes. The FMP12 disaster and also that half-backed FMP14 release does not only hurt FMI's reputation very badly, but also ours as well!
To whome it may concern:
have a look here Idea Informer » Feedback 2.0
This is a transparent form to collect and rate any feature suggestion for a software
- all participants have the same level of information and see the proposed requests (not everybody starts from the scratch and has to type in the same request over and over again
- possability for all users to rate a feature request: the more credit points to more it is requested/valued
- The Company is still free to choose which requested feature should be put into action
- The person requesting a feature can see his request posted and gets a feedback (by the credit point) if his suggestion makes sense to others (or if he is the only person on the planet wanting it)
When you compare this to the present situation at FM Inc. one can easily see the stunning difference
A similar system within the Teamviewer Commmunity, a very successful and progressive Software Company
Or do you recommend me to remove this feedback from here and post it as a feature request for how a feature request should be posted at Feature Suggestion (Company | FileMaker)