I just looked at another failure (DataGroup). It also points at this set
of changes. It turns out that Sort.fields can be null if you don't have
any SortFields and only a Sort.compareFunction. It fails on line 395.
You'll need a null check there.
On 5/27/14 1:16 PM, "Michael A. Labriola" <labri...@digitalprimates.net>
wrote:
>>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")
>
>Thanks. I think there may have been a bad merge on my part too as it
>seems the logic that was checked in is also missing another condition.
>Will try to get this resolved today.
>
>My concern on the change above is only that a custom sort function could
>be on use a label function or something other than a single field, so we
>need to ensure that we don't exclusively use the existence of the fields
>as an indicator. The original bug was also that rows were being inserted
>in the wrong place when using a custom sort function as it was using the
>field to determine where, not the function.
>
>Mike
>
