Behaviour of tab is inconsistent on Disc Information dialog #139

New Issue

Closed

opened 2026-01-29 16:10:19 +00:00 by claunia · 2 comments

claunia commented 2026-01-29 16:10:19 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

Originally created by @gingerbeardman on GitHub (Sep 20, 2019).

On some fields tab moves to next field (eg Data/LO)

• this is expected behaviour

On others it inserts a tab character (eg Label/L1)

• this is unexpected behaviour

Originally created by @gingerbeardman on GitHub (Sep 20, 2019). On some fields tab moves to next field (eg Data/LO) - this is expected behaviour On others it inserts a tab character (eg Label/L1) - this is unexpected behaviour 

claunia added the wontfix label 2026-01-29 16:10:19 +00:00

claunia closed this issue 2026-01-29 16:10:20 +00:00

claunia commented 2026-01-29 16:10:22 +00:00

Author

Owner

Copy Link

@sadikyo commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2019):

I believe this is setup intentionally, because the ringcode fields can have tabs in them. I believe the idea is to get the data filled in to the txt/json as completely and accurately as possible. Including the actual tabs in the fields, makes it such that they can be later copied / submitted / imported (eventually, potentially) in a way that requires less processing. The trade-off for this is perhaps navigating the disc collection dialog, but it would just require clicking on the next field.

@sadikyo commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2019): I believe this is setup intentionally, because the ringcode fields can have tabs in them. I believe the idea is to get the data filled in to the txt/json as completely and accurately as possible. Including the actual tabs in the fields, makes it such that they can be later copied / submitted / imported (eventually, potentially) in a way that requires less processing. The trade-off for this is perhaps navigating the disc collection dialog, but it would just require clicking on the next field.

claunia commented 2026-01-29 16:10:23 +00:00

Author

Owner

Copy Link

@gingerbeardman commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2019):

Understood.

@gingerbeardman commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2019): Understood.

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Branch/Tag Specified

Branches Tags

master

rolling

3.6.0

3.5.0

3.4.2

3.4.1

3.4.0

3.3.3

3.3.2

3.3.1

3.3.0

3.2.4

3.2.3

3.2.2

3.2.1

3.2.0

3.1.9

3.1.8

3.1.7

3.1.6

3.1.5

3.1.4

3.1.3

3.1.2

check-rolling

ui-rolling

3.1.1

3.1.0

3.0.3

3.0.2

3.0.1

3.0.0

2.7.5

2.7.4

2.7.3

2.7.2

2.7.1

2.7.0

2.6.6

2.6.5

2.6.4

2.6.3

2.6.2

2.6.1

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.18

1.17.1

1.17

1.16.1

1.16

1.15

1.14

1.13

1.12.2

1.12.1

1.12

1.11

1.10

1.07

1.06

1.05.1

1.05

1.04b

1.04a

1.04

1.03

1.02b

1.02

1.01d

1.01c

1.01b

Labels

Clear labels

bug

duplicate

enhancement

good first issue

help wanted

invalid

pull-request

Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request

question

regression

wontfix

No Label wontfix

Milestone

No items

No Milestone

Projects

Clear projects

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

claunia

No Assignees

1 Participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: SabreTools/MPF#139