Thank you Bhroam for the comments.
Sorry I went a little overboard on generalizing the feature with the given problem
I will remove my imaginary reqs and rework on the interface design for a formula interface.
meanwhile my answers to your comments
I did evaluate this as a formula and found it hard to express the default behavior in formula.
Felt it will be more confusing and doing a formula_evaluate() for sorting is a overhead for this task.
I agree the formula will help in setting it dynamically.
I will try reworking design for formula, please help me with a sample formula example.
With the current design I felt it was useful and made more easy for customer to prioritize sets of placement sets. This was the crux of my design. Anyways with the new formula design rework, this will be gone.
It was just an example. The feature doesn’t mandate on the naming of the psets. The customer can always prefix the smaller digit numbers with zero. i.e we can go from 01 to 39.
As i will rework on the design with formula interface, this requirement will get void
I also have same understanding, but I did a misplaced them.
Yes I agree its a RFE by itself. As I said I will remove this fictitious requirement while reworking the design
Thank you for enlightening me.
I was aware on this, it was just an unrelated scenario.
I agree. It was hard for me to create it too.
I disagree. I first started with vnode0 and then as I added the “router” string array resource I inserted the router index “1” to the vnode number to make it vnode10. I could have easily used vnode00,01 and so on. As I said the design doesn’t mandate the naming.
As per my imagined design it is correct. The idea was to first consider a specific psets and if not available, step back for a more generalized. anyways this will be gone with redesign