a33b wrote:
Low priority, but thought I'd at least air the idea.
I definitely agree with this! There's never any reason to modify JUST the main or trustful table, as it'll always throw you into limp mode. So it would just make sense for the main table to modify both itself and the trustful table when modifying it inside of RR. Having the trustful table be hidden would be nice as well!
An added thought, if a trustful table isn't defined, then don't allow/don't display the main one to prevent only one of them being modified. Obviously since the values are 1:1, manual definitions won't have an issue finding both. But sometimes automatic def's will only be able to find one of the tables and not the other. So it could be a nice safety net. (ideally, you'd just manually define the trustful table.)