Ticket #63 ( Closed )

Short Description hidden field processing
Entered By: PeteL When: 1998-06-24 06:56:50 Build: 1.03.14b
Categories Type: Question   Department: Product   Category: HTML Generation
Description
 this may be a problem, or it may be a question.
I have an open problem on my internal log which says that when a password expires, the user is prompted for new password - they key that in, but are then prompted for their old password, which they had already keyed in. this is not the application behavior, but I believe is being caused by hidden field processing. If hidden fields are not passed as HTML, which I believe to be the case, then the user updates a different field on the form (e.g. new password), when the form fields are subsequently remapped into the 3270 buffer, that now-"empty" hidden field will wipe out the actual hidden data in the buffer. This is what I think is happening. Can you confirm and figure out some way to handle? This is probably pretty typical of expired password processing.
Append By: WindSurfer  When: 1998-06-24 08:52:40  New Status: Pending Customer
Comment A hidden input field is passed as a type="password" html input field, with the value passed as with other input fields.

See if you can catch one of these in action--does the "old" password field have any data in it? Also, check the view-source to see if the old password is actually being set properly in the value attribute.

You can probably test some of this behavior on a normal password entry, by mis-keying once-- does the field re-display with any data, or empty?

Looking at the code, the only difference between a hidden unprotected and a non-hidden is the type="text" for the non-hidden and type="password" for the hidden.

Perhaps a work-around while this is resolved would be to slap a template on this one, and not send-out the "old" at all, in case the password type input clears any value="data"...

Append By: PeteL  When: 1998-07-02 05:51:53  New Status: Closed
Comment this turned out to be something unrelated to what was initially described by the user and has been fixed - there is no problem with hidden field processing.