Yes, allowing a default value for fields within CB backend field definition seems like a good and useful idea.
Is there a reason why (other than the team being rushed off their feet with everything else!) it hasn't been implemented? ... a technical reason?
I've looked at the jos_comprofiler_fields 'default' field, which is now a medium text as discussed ... but if this only applies to fields visible at registration, that's a bit restrictive.
Like Rogmann I thought of setting the default values in the table definition, but that's not ideal ... I'm not sure how well that will work with future upgrades.
My reason for wanting defaults is two fold:
- Partly to have a lot of info in a profile, with required fields, but to allow members to update from the standard settings 'over time'
and
- Partly to work with Mikko's APC to control visibility of some tabs and allow
required fields on tabs that are initially hidden, but revealed later if members make them visible.
( Maybe this doesn't mean much to you unless you are working in detail on this area.
)
Post edited by: tayhow, at: 2007/04/25 19:42