Feature request - synchronized FC sets

I just added a feature request here: http://bugs.modx.com/issues/5712. Thought it might generate some discussion.

Is anyone else using FC sets and in particular using matching pairs of resource/create and resource/update sets? I often want to control how a certain template's form looks, and have the same customizations both for new and existing resources.

I'm finding it kind of frustrating to manage these create/update pairs - when I go in and make some changes to one of the sets, I have to go in to the other set and manually make all of the same changes.

My thought was that FC sets could have some sort of master/slave relationship. You'd control all of the field & tab customizations on one set, and on the other set, instead of making manual customizations, you'd have a "synchronize this set with" pulldown list of other FC sets in the profile to sync with. The "slave" FC set would have its own action, description, constraints, etc, but would inherit all of its customizations from the "master" set.

Does anyone else think this would make FC sets much more user-friendly?

I like the concept, but I'm not sure that's the friendliest way to implement it.

I'd like to see a couple of checkboxes (create and update) when you create the rule that control when it applies.

Quote from: BobRay at Sep 13, 2011, 10:04 PM

I like the concept, but I'm not sure that's the friendliest way to implement it.

I'd like to see a couple of checkboxes (create and update) when you create the rule that control when it applies.

That does seem more user friendly at a glance. However, it may be the case that more than just the "action" needs to be differentiated between the synchronized sets. In my case, my "create" set is based on the constraint of a given parent resource. My "update" set is based on the template (which was set by the "create" set. You also might want to have several different "create" sets that had different criteria but all were synchronized to the same customizations.

Good points. I think my idea might limit the functionality too much, since it would require the create and update rules to match.

That said, I'm afraid your solution might make FC even more confusing to people. It looks like it adds layer of complexity to an already complex system.

How about a double panel with all the fields for the create action on the left and a similar panel on the right for the update action? Either side could be grayed out and disabled with a checkbox. There could be a couple of arrow buttons for duplicating one side to the other, but saving the form could create two separate FC rules that wouldn't have to match except for the action fields.

It would be a significant job to create the panels, though, and the logic of preventing duplicate rules would be tough as well. [ed. note: BobRay last edited this post 12 years, 7 months ago.]