Issue 108100 - Table edit window not save default values to script
Summary: Table edit window not save default values to script
Alias: None
Product: Base
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 3.2 RC1
Hardware: Unknown Linux, all
: P3 Trivial with 2 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: AOO issues mailing list
QA Contact:
Depends on:
Reported: 2010-01-06 08:47 UTC by r4zoli
Modified: 2013-08-07 15:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

bugdoc (4.26 KB, application/vnd.sun.xml.base)
2010-01-06 08:49 UTC, r4zoli
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description r4zoli 2010-01-06 08:47:37 UTC
Open attached database.
Open Item table for edit, the DEALER (integer) field has default value 0.
Open table for data input the default value is shown.

Close database, rename file to .zip, open database script in text editor.
In table the DEALER (INTEGER) field not contain default value.

Consequence the relation designer will show error when this field go to the
Comment 1 r4zoli 2010-01-06 08:49:25 UTC
Created attachment 67016 [details]
Comment 2 marc.neumann 2010-01-07 07:59:38 UTC
confirm , set target and send to the right developer
Comment 3 Frank Schönheit 2010-01-07 08:12:19 UTC
this isn't easy to fix, and a long-standing problem: The defaults shown in the
UI are *not* the defaults as known to the database engine, but "client-side"
defaults. They're used only when displaying the respective table field in some
form/control, but the engine doesn't know about it.
Comment 4 drewjensen.inbox 2010-01-07 13:42:02 UTC
But this was the decided upon design, client side only. 
Is it now open to change?
Comment 5 Frank Schönheit 2010-01-07 14:17:28 UTC
not "now", probably ... I think that we should address this in the future, by
distinguishing between client-side and server-side defaults. However, this is
not done by passing, it needs non-negligible effort. Thus, given the list of
other things, I'd say Marc was a little bit too optimistic with the "3.x" target.
Comment 6 phoneixs 2010-01-10 18:56:04 UTC
I think at least should be warned in the field description.