Thanks for your solution and its documentation, Tom.

Johnny, please open a ticket at the bugtracker for the issues you noticed using my solution. It is weird that the result is not stored, this sounds like a bug.

I have reported it to the Bugtracker just now. /J

mr2jswe wrote: I have reported it to the Bugtracker just now. /J

Link?

Ah, ok here it is: Bugtracker .

Thanks, we'll look into it and might ask some further questions at the bug ticket.

This isn't a bug in LS, but perhaps highlights a need to clarify how best to use custom JavaScript with Expression Manager.

Your custom JavaScript should have been:

Checkconditions() must be called in order for EM to process the new value you set for the variable (e.g. to ensure that the new value is stored within the hidden variables that are submitted, and call the relevance equations to change which questions are visible).

So, the documentation for this workaround needs to be updated for 1.92+. It isn't adequate to just call:

TMSWhite wrote: It isn't adequate to just call:

Code:

$('#questionQQ').hide();

Tom, that might lead to lots of problems because to my knowledge, lots of users are using
$('#questionQQ').hide();
...at their customized Javascript. Will all these calls not work properly?

Mazi-

Yes, that might be a problem for users, depending upon what they are trying to do.

EM processes conditions/relevance based upon new 'relevanceG'+$gid, 'relevance'+$qid, and 'relevance'+$sgqa values, rather than trying to infer whether a question is relevant from whether or not it is hidden.

There are plenty of cases where users want to hide values without making them irrelevant (e.g. if they are passing parameters in via the command line), so question visibility and relevance are distinct attributes.

If the user doesn't care whether data is collected from a hidden question, then calling $('#questionQQ').hide() is fine. However, hiding a variable via $('#questionQQ').hide() will not cause any cascading conditional logic to execute.

Of course, users could customize their template.js to add a jQuery.live() function to call checkconditions() whenever they issue a $('#questionQQ').hide() event, but that may be overkill, since EM-itself calls $('#questionQQ').hide() when a question is irrelevant, so I'm not sure what would happen if you tried to add a jQuery.live() event.

Perhaps Tony or Denis could propose simple ways to support users in this situation.

The firing of checkconditions() was always required for dynamic conditions on a page.

Tom, are you saying that if checkconditions() is not called, the value of an input field that was modified by JavaScript will not be detected when the form submits (the "Next" button is clicked) for use in conditions on subsequent pages?

As long as the proper javascript variable has its value set, the value will be submitted when the user clicks "next". In the example below, the user set the $('#answerSGQA") variable, which is the widget that lets the user see the value, but it is the $('#javaSGQA') variable that is typically the one submitted. checkconditions() not only triggers the conditional logic, but also tends to populate the $('#javaSGQA') variable if passed the value from the $('#answerSGQA') value.

Hmm, I don't see any $('#javaSGQA') element for text inputs.

Regardless, in my opinion, if a visible form element (text input, radio, checkbox, ...) is modified by JavaScript it should be detected on submit as it was in the past.

There may be many people running surveys with custom scripts expecting this behaviour.

Tony-

I just checked all of the question types. The name="SGQA" attribute is always associated with the visual input element (which is usually an id="answerSGQA" code). So, the example in this thread (which changes $('#answerSGQA')) WILL submit the value.

However, EM uses the hidden $('#javaSGQA') variable to process conditions. So, if people change an $('#answerSGQA') value but don't call checkconditions(), the downstream conditions processing won't happen.

So, people's JavaScript should continue to work as expected.