Time Selector not working when clicking on the initial set time

[ondoheer]

I have a time input that displays the current time as the "pre selected" time, but when I click it doen't select that time, I have to scroll down to find the time I want to select.

I tried setting an initial value for the time, so that the current time shows as first option in the dropdown, but it didn't work just for times, and I haven't found any way to make initialValue for time.

[arman-h]

I'm experiencing an issue that may be the same as or similar to this behavior.

When you set the time via an API call, it shows correctly in the time picker. However, when clicking on the picker, it shows the times dropdown starting with 12:00am instead of the selected time as the first or middle value. So, if you're setting it on initialization to "12:00pm", later want to change it to "12:30pm" in the UI, the time picker drops down a list starting at "12:00am" instead of "pm", and you're forced to scroll down 12 values to get to "12:30pm".

[mgraupner]

@ondoheer @arman-h Did you come up with a solution for this? I'm wondering no one before us thought that this a serious usability issue, especially using 24h format scrolling down the list is a pitty. Otherwise I really love the simplicity of this library...

[ondoheer]

Hi there, no, I did not. The project I was using it with got to an impasse and it's been stopped until they decide if they are implementing it. I really love the library, but that is indeed something that needs to be solved or documented. I love Nicolás work, I hope this gets fixed! On 8 Dec 2015 3:18 pm, "mgraupner" [email protected] wrote:

@ondoheer https://github.com/ondoheer @arman-h https://github.com/arman-h Did you come up with a solution for this? I'm wondering no one before us thought that this a serious usability issue, especially using 24h format scrolling down the list is a pitty. Otherwise I really love the simplicity of this library...

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/bevacqua/rome/issues/122#issuecomment-163004770.