IMO, the DG is doing some serious cheating. One has to worry about others relying on this undocumented behavior. I don't like changing behavior on our customers, but I'm not sure everyone wants this behavior.
But first, let's nail this sort=null thing. I can look into it if you want. On 5/15/13 9:39 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >> Yup, that's the one we discussed last night. The localIndex=null in the >> sort setter is busting that test because the DG is counting on setting >> sort to null and restoring it without calling refresh(). >That explains it. > >I've looked into it and think you're correct in that refresh should be >called but it should still work correctly in that you should be able to >add and remove items (without RTEs) after changing the sort or filter >function. > >If the DG is actually doing the right thing there I'm still not 100% sure. > >BTW I think the reason why this issue has come up a few times in the bug >base was because way back in Flex 2 setting the sort to null cleared the >sort. > >Thanks, >Justin
