Error in pagination

[stefanCCS]

Release 3.3.1
I have found an issue in pagination: For the first page the pagination value is not stored in meta.xml.
In meta data editor you can see it correctly:

In meta.xml ist looks like this (after saving):

[stefanCCS]

Some more tests have shown, that this issue might onyl occur in combination with "extended structure" meta data view.

[stefanCCS]

@solth : Try to check this Release 3.5.0-beta.
It looks like that the "extended structure" does not exists anymore (at least I cannot find anymore the checkmark in the workflow editor).
Can you confirm this?

[BartChris]

It still exists, red switch at top of workflow editor

[stefanCCS]

fyi:
I do not use "Extended Structure" anymore. Therefore, this issue has low to zero priority for myself.

[stefanCCS]

@solth : Feel free to close this issue, or keep it open - as you wish ...

[solth]

@stefanCCS thanks for the comments. There are several features of the editor that are not really incoporated into the extended view, yet, so I will keep this issue open until we have feature parity between combined and extended tree.

[stefanCCS]

@solth : Question is, if "Extended View" is a feature, which is used at all. Maybe a discussion could be opened on the "Community email list"? (If it is not really used, I simply would discontinue this feature (declare this as "deprecated")).
So, what do you think ? (or any other opinion?)

[solth]

@stefanCCS the extended structure tree is a central feature used in the Swiss Federal Archive and therefore cannot be deprecated.

[stefanCCS]

@solth
ok, understood.
But still, if they are the only Power-User, we could ask and understand, what parts of this feature they use.
(e.g. it looks like they do not bother about this issue here).
If you think this is reasonable, I can discuss this also in the next Board-Meeting (with your participation, if you like).
So, again, what do you think?

[solth]

As I said I think we should not remove a feature that is actively used. This issue should remain open because it is not solved, yet, but can be considered low priority.

[stefanCCS]

@solth
ok, understood.
But still, if they are the only Power-User, we could ask and understand, what parts of this feature they use.
(e.g. it looks like they do not bother about this issue here).
If you think this is reasonable, I can discuss this also in the next Board-Meeting (with your participation, if you like).
So, again, what do you think?
(main idea from my side is, to avoid maintaining features, which are not really used ...)