Skip to content

Conversation

@cgunther
Copy link
Contributor

Attempt to document #483.

I wasn't sure how best to convey this given it affects consuming the search results, not performing the search itself. It should also be unsurprising that you'd access these search-only fields the same way you'd access regular or read-only fields.

Had we buried these search-only fields in custom fields, like #426 first attempted, then I'd find that more surprising and warranting clearer documentation.

Attempt to document NetSweet#483.

I wasn't sure how best to convey this given it affects consuming the search results, not performing the search itself. It should also be unsurprising that you'd access these search-only fields the same way you'd access regular or read-only fields.

Had we buried these search-only fields in custom fields, like NetSweet#426 first attempted, then I'd find that more surprising and warranting clearer documentation.
@iloveitaly
Copy link
Member

This is great! Just a simple one or two lines to push folks in the right direction is helpful.

@iloveitaly iloveitaly merged commit 1758fc5 into NetSweet:master Aug 11, 2021
diegopolido pushed a commit to penrosehill/netsuite that referenced this pull request Oct 7, 2021
Attempt to document NetSweet#483.

I wasn't sure how best to convey this given it affects consuming the search results, not performing the search itself. It should also be unsurprising that you'd access these search-only fields the same way you'd access regular or read-only fields.

Had we buried these search-only fields in custom fields, like NetSweet#426 first attempted, then I'd find that more surprising and warranting clearer documentation.
@cgunther cgunther deleted the patch-1 branch January 5, 2022 14:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants