It seems to be the case that every element/field of every record can be edited except "Type." Can this be changed so that this element/field can also be edited (perhaps through a pull down menu like used for "Group." As it stands now, if you decide sometime after you create a record as a "Login" (for example) you decide that it makes more sense for it to be an "Email Account" you have to delete the entire record and start all over.

image above protrudes into the entry below

Good day!

Kindly ask you to add option change type in the cards from list templates.

Agree. Would be nice to do this. A good compromise re field structure incongruenties would be to simply plunk data from old record as a return-delimited text field into the notes field of the new record. At least that way we can repopulate the new record without too much hassle. 

Beats not facility at all.

dm

I would suggest (being cautious) to allow creating a duplicate record

In the duplicate record a user could:

  insert a new field anywhere, copy the previous value from the old field and paste it into the new field, delete the old field, then

 "map" the list of fields to any group/type which contains matching fields classes in any order.

So, I could take a BSSID type record which has a BSSID:uncorrected text, SSID:uncorrected text, Password:hidden text

and change it into a SSID type record which has a PreSharedKey:hidden text, BSSID:uncorrected text, SSID:uncorrected text.

So essentially, I mess with changing a duplicate record into a new type record.

I assume someone with 500 passwords might need a more robust approach though.

Hi Eden,

I'm interested in this feature.  It's been a year since you last posted mSeven's intention to add-back this feature.  What is the status on this?  I don't see the change in my Windows version.

There are several fine examples of web based forum applications. 

Doesn't your provider provide support? The BOLD character style seems the only one that wasn't working. I figured out the others and see now that you may have fixed the one that wasn't operative. So we're good on that. You're welcome. The rest are probably more extensive:

• Editing of a posting not allowed. 
• Preview of a post before it is sent not allowed.  
• Showing an added/uploaded image, in context, or the actual code snippet to allow move it within the posting as a preview, while composing it. <- Elaborated from a previous post. 
  
• Showing comments on a particular post in context to group those comments together in a "thread" or a  'sub-thread'. You probably would only want two levels on something like that. 

Yet another problem is, if I get an email about a topic (your response on the watched topic), it has a click to reply button (Nice Feature!) in the email. 

When I click to reply, the web browser opens up to a view only copy of the response(s). Then, however, when I go to sign in, the web site brings me to the top of the web site, not back to where I just was, signed it and ready to respond. That, quite simply is a coding error on the part of whoever designed your site. You should fix that one, too. 

First of all, let me comment about the Forum design. On my browser at least, there is no reply to a post. It would be nice if the posts could be grouped by the tag above (@User Name) but it doesn't happen. Nor or is there a way to edit a post by the author. Kind of poor forum design. Summary of poor forum design:

• You see only some character styles work in context as expected, while composing -  in context demo - Bold, Italic, Underline, line through,  RED GREEN BLUE. 
• Editing not allowed. 
• Preview not allowed 
• Not allowed (edit or preview) to show an added image, in context, or move it within the posting. 

@ Rick McGrath

1. Fix up the entry's category to match AND fix the entry itself to work in the layout type used. 
2. Move the entry to a similar or new Category, fixing the type as needed. 
3. Figure out what it was about your entry that caused it to go into the Unassigned category in the first place (in my case it was most often that there was no standard category by the same name as the standard set and some new Category names didn't import). I just went back and compared- there were 319 in an Unassigned Group in my 1209 entries of all Types and Groups. All those already Unassigned Group of entries came over the same way. I had none in an Unassigned Type category.  
4. My previous version, BTW, was mSecure 3.5.7 (see screenshot). 

@Rick McGrath 

I understand now. The work around described by @Eden was not to try. Group those types together by changing that. Depending on the direction of what you want to do with the record, it would seem to make some sense. So why would you want to change the type in the first place (of existing records)? 

In my case, can't speak to yours, I had been changing the record types merely to get them grouped together. Groups fits that requirement- simply moving all the old records (entries) to a combining group. 

If updating the type field with newer specific fields OTOH, I used to (in mSecure 3) add a field at the end for new data which didn't change the other field uses. That is still an option. 

When I migrated my 1200+ records from mSecure 3.x (Mac Version), had 300 in the Unassigned group - many from previous migrations. I went through them all, moving them to different groups multiples at a time (which, for some reason, proved to be a quirky selection process), deleting many old unneeded entries (many from 2009 and earlier), noting that many would need further editing because the field names had considerably changed over the years' multiple iterations of field names. Guessing that yours will need similar attention. 

@Eden

I think this is a good work around. I set up a Group called Closed/Old/Seldom used for some of my 1100 entries. Seems to be handy for me.