Regrouping BT-763 and BT-31/BT-33 #686
Replies: 5 comments
-
|
Just note to myself: there is another notice-type related issue/idea in the discussions: #517 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Please use the github discussions for subjects which are more suggestions, questions and ideas than proven technical bugs. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
According to Enrico this is a good idea, but currently we have too many other priorities. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As this is an idea/suggestion, I'm converting it to a discussion. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Bumping this ticket, we're still very much in favor of having a solution for this :-) In our application we now have to use little pointer texts to tell users about BT-31 "further down below":
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Why are BT-763 and BT-31/BT-33 in a separate group in the sdk (opposite of the eForms regulation)? Is it not logic that the fields are together? And should there be a rule that says if BT-763 is filled in then BT-31 is forbidden.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions