This is Justin's test case that replicates the problem in English.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<s:Application xmlns:fx="http://ns.adobe.com/mxml/2009";
xmlns:s="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark"
xmlns:mx="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx"
initialize="triggerFindConditionRTE()">
<fx:Script>
<![CDATA[
import mx.collections.Sort;
import mx.collections.SortField;
private function triggerFindConditionRTE():void{
var a:Array = new Array();
var s:Sort = new Sort();
a.push("a");
s.compareFunction = cmpFn;
var sfArray:Array = new Array();
sfArray.push(new SortField("0"));
sfArray.push(new SortField("field1"));
var o:Object = new Object();
o["0"] = undefined;
o["field1"] = 2;
s.fields = sfArray;
s.findItem(a, o, null);
}
// WTF?
private function cmpFn(o1:Object, o2:Object):void{
}
]]>
</fx:Script>
</s:Application>
You should get an arg count mismatch. By changing the (!hasFieldName)
test on Sort.as line 413 I got the expected result ("Find criteria must
contain all sort fields")
On 5/27/14 12:53 PM, "Michael A. Labriola" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>Mike, your thoughts on the logic? The test sets up two SortFields and a
>>compare function on the Sort (not the SortFields) then calls findItem.
>The first SortField's field name is a non-existent field. I think the
>old logic would see if the field existed in the data item. The new logic
>seems to assume the fieldName exists as long as there is no SortField
>compare function and skips the check if the field exists in the data.
>
>
>Let me setup and replicate this scenario and mine locally and see what I
>can do.
>
>Mike
