Forms 2.0 - Ability to read in old picklists into new select tool

[Anonymous]

In Forms 1.0 you were able to set a picklist using the format

\;\::\Please Select::;Pretty Name 1::Database Name 1;Pretty Name 2::Database Name 2
or
\|||\Item 1|||Item2|||Item 3

Neither of these formats is read in correctly in the select text for existing picklists.

[Anonymous]

Hi Matthew,

You can set values for a picklist similarly in Forms 2.0.

We've attempted to simplify the way this is set-up.

Her'es how it looks in the 2.0 UI:

The new format is:
"Display Value" | "Stored Value"

In the case where your display and stored values are the same, the easiest way to use this would be to copy/paste a column of values from a spreadsheet into the advanced editor.  

In the case where you want differentiated values for what's displayed and stored, you can copy paste two columns with a pipe ("|") separating the values of two columns.

Hope this helps!

[Anonymous]

I realize this, but because we have been building for a while in the system, all of our pick lists are already set up.  So, for any of the fields that are picklists, it doesn't read in correctly.  This idea was to include some backwards compatability to read the list in.  

I know the new format works fine for when you are setting up something new, or are pasting in, but for legacy users, it woul be good to read the new format in.  We will be continuing to use both form editors (we have templates/styling that will make it impossible to switch everything over, so this is why one picklist needs to work in both editors.

[EDIT] - Additional information
We have a field that has about 100 values in it in our database.  This needs to be set for every new lead coming in, so it is set up as a picklist.  In Analytics or Lead Database, if I am creating a smart list to segment the leads, the picklist works correctly in the multiple value chooser.  However, if I am trying to add the same field to a forms 2.0 form as a select, it doesn't read the list into the editor correctly.  same list, two different uses, -- it seems like it should be read in correctly both places.