Skip to content

Conversation

@enjeck
Copy link
Contributor

@enjeck enjeck commented Dec 3, 2025

fixes #2154

@enjeck enjeck requested a review from silverkszlo December 3, 2025 07:12
@enjeck enjeck self-assigned this Dec 3, 2025
@enjeck enjeck requested a review from blizzz as a code owner December 3, 2025 07:12
@enjeck enjeck added the 3. to review Waiting for reviews label Dec 3, 2025
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to 🧭 Planning evaluation (don't pick) in 📝 Office team Dec 3, 2025
@enjeck enjeck force-pushed the fix/2154 branch 2 times, most recently from 299f7ff to 3d19f28 Compare December 3, 2025 07:35
Signed-off-by: Enjeck C. <patrathewhiz@gmail.com>
@blizzz
Copy link
Member

blizzz commented Dec 4, 2025

Maybe it is not a regression, but still strikes me awkward: the lower number is inclusive, but the upper limit number is exclusive?

Anyway, what I am not sure about is that numbers are changed to either lower or highest value, depending where they are created. I wonder whether this is OK, or whether there should be an error instead. UX question.

Screencast_20251204_110805.webm

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

3. to review Waiting for reviews

Projects

Status: 🧭 Planning evaluation (don't pick)

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Input behaviour broken for numbers with defined min/max values

3 participants