F9 in the Cube viewer

[Wim Gielis]

Please, when pressing F9 in the Cube viewer for recalculating the view,

DO NOT go back to the first cell in the view !!!

It's very annoying to do input cell by cell, pressing F9 to recalc, and then having to go back to the selected cell.

Thanks IBM.

[jim wood]

It's very annoying. I'm sure there will be some bizarre reason for it. There always is.

[Alan Kirk]

It's very annoying. I'm sure there will be some bizarre reason for it. There always is.

Though I'm hardly a staunch supporter of IBM... I'm not sure that they really have a lot of choice in this case. The problem is that the rows and columns may have changed since the last recalculation was done, and Cube Viewer has no way of knowing whether they have or not.

For example, you hit [F9], see the numbers, a scheduled upload occurs, then you hit [F9] again and... whatever was at (say) row 17 column 12 where your cursor was, may no longer be at that position. In fact the value you had your cursor on may no longer even exist if it has been zeroed out. Certainly you could reposition the cursor to the same relative position in the grid easily enough but I'm not sure that that will help if it means that you land on an entirely different number, and also you could only do it if the recalculated view had at least as many rows and columns as the original view did.

The only way that you could implement this is to, after calculation, check that the rows and columns of the recalculated view corresponded to the rows and columns of the view before it was calculated. If they did, only then could you relocate the cursor on the same coordinates as they were before. (Alternatively if you want to position it on the same element combination, you'd need to check whether that combination was in fact returned as part of the recalculated view.)

All of those options would take overhead processing, and the designers probably opted for speed and just went with the simplest option of returning the cursor to row 1, column 1.

[Wim Gielis]

Good point Alan, I hadn't thought of that possibility.