Clarity

  • 1.  Negative numbers formatting in Clarity v13  Part II

    Posted 09-24-2015 11:20 AM

    I am a little bit puzzled because in Clarity 13.2 I see mixed results in two OOTB portlets when i look at Capacity - Allocation field

     

    This has negative numbers in red and brackets

    Name    Role Capacity

    System Provider               Roles with Resource Aggregation

     

    This has not negative numbers in red  only in brackets

    Name    Resource Workloads

    System Provider               Resources with Aggregation

     

    Both are using system dataproviders, It is the same type of field - calculated variance and even the same name.

    Because the dataproviders are not objects I don*t have access to display mappings.

     

    Has any one experienced this?

    If that is possible I should like to have the negative numbers in rd in both cases?

     

    This is how it looks in one system for Role capacity

    w

    No the users want the Resource workloads to be the same. How do I format the negative numbers to be the saem.

     

    On another 13.3 the detail rows are formatted differently from the aggregate rows. Is there something I can do about the formatting?



  • 2.  Re: Negative numbers formatting in Clarity v13  Part II

    Posted 09-25-2015 07:40 AM

    These screenshots are from live system which caused the user to request the formatting.

    How can I make both display negative numbers in red in the detail section?



  • 3.  Re: Negative numbers formatting in Clarity v13  Part II

    Posted 09-25-2015 08:11 AM

    Looks buggy to me (aka "its a feature of a time-scaled-value view") - not sure there is anything you could do.



  • 4.  Re: Negative numbers formatting in Clarity v13  Part II

    Posted 09-25-2015 08:58 AM

    Thanks.

    I have not checked the minor versions so that could be different.

    In the older thread the conclusion was that it is in the css files.

    That could be true, but then there would have to be two different ones in on version.

    That again is possible if they come with the portlets which have there different set of codes and auxiliary files, I was thinking that were coded in to the portlets in an area not available to the user.

    What sounds buggy to me is the aggregate line being different from the detail line. Again the above applies to that as well.