It turns out that filtering out the parent node hides all the
children too, so I guess this isn't what I want after all.
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Amy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "whatabrain" wrote:
> >
> > Calling refresh() did nothing.
> >
> >
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "whatabrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Calling refresh() did nothing.
>
> Note that if I choose to filter out all the child nodes, it works
> perfectly. It's only the parent nodes I can't filter, because the
> filter is never called for them.
Hierarchical
You know that the filterFunction is being called because you have a
breakpoint and trace insde it and are running in debug mode right?
Also, is the filterFunction on the correct ArrayCollection (the main one
and not the extended one)? The correct order would be:
1.) Add parent object to main A
Calling refresh() did nothing.
Note that if I choose to filter out all the child nodes, it works
perfectly. It's only the parent nodes I can't filter, because the
filter is never called for them.
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Hoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anytime that you use
Anytime that you use a filterFunction or sort on an ArrayCollection,
it won't be executed until you use call the refresh method.
Basically you're saying, ok filter and sort my collection now. It
doesn't happen automatically. After #3, and anytime that items are
added/changed/removed in the c
No, I never call refresh(). Here's the sequence:
1) Set the filter function.
2) Add a parent object [filter function is not called]
3) Add a child object [filter function IS called]
I've tried adding parents and children later on too, and the filter
function is still only called for children.
"and both are called after the filter is defined"
Are you calling ArrayCollection.refresh() after you finish adding the
parent and children objects?
-TH
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "whatabrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My filter function is really simple. Something along these line
My filter function is really simple. Something along these lines:
private function filterFunc(item:Object):Boolean
{
return item is ChildObj;
}
The dataProvider is an ArrayCollection containing ParentObjs.
ParentObj extends ArrayCollection, and contains ChildObjs.
I call ArrayCollection.addIte
Interesting, I would think that the opposite would occur; if you're
using something like: return item.myfield=="whatever";. Sure, post your
filterFunction; as well as a basic idea of the collection's structure.
-TH
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "whatabrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> W
When I try this, the filter function isn't called for top-level
items. It's called for all child nodes in the dataProvider, but not
for the parent node. Any idea why this might be, or do you need a
code sample?
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Hoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> IC
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Tracy Spratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, you "hide" a row by removing it from the dataProvider. There is
> no direct relationship between a DG row and a dataProvider item.
Or you can use a filterFunction, which doesn't remove the row, but
makes it te
bject: [flexcoders] Re: Hiding a row in an AdvancedDataGrid
ICollectionView or a filterFuncton can work for this; if you don't want
to mess with the underlying source.
-TH
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>
, "Tracy Spratt" <[EMAIL PRO
ICollectionView or a filterFuncton can work for this; if you don't want
to mess with the underlying source.
-TH
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Tracy Spratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, you "hide" a row by removing it from the dataProvider. There is
> no direct relationship between
13 matches
Mail list logo
