Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove saving the 'layout_control' key to the database like the tab... #11

Open
theperfectwill opened this issue Aug 12, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@theperfectwill
Copy link

Hi, not that I have a problem with the key of the layout_control name being saved to the database because it's not used for anything, but it just now crossed my mind that the tab name is not saved, so maybe you can loop the layout_control key to nto saved to the database like the tab field?

It would help in a small way so it wouldn't have to be looked at in the saved array data at all.

Here's how it would help me, even more specifcially.

My fields running a more dynamically generated process where possible.

Example, the tab field name for me is uniqid() so i don't need to edit it for everything, since it is not used for data but just UI purposes.

I would like to add uniqid() to the layout_control field as well, but I can't do that as of now, because that will currently save that unique id each time to the database, and you can see what issue that would create, a bunch of empty keys in that data.

But maybe this is not as possible as the tab is? I say that because maybe this specific field name is used to identify the layout_control field directly so it can be referenced when loading it relative saved options?

You can see below what I mean in regards to using the uniqid() for the key name.

image

@theperfectwill
Copy link
Author

I could add that I use this 'uniqid() on the message field as well since not data is saved to the data bases from that field either.

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant