Defect #13522
open
Private field is shown as required
Added by Filou Centrinov about 11 years ago. Updated about 11 years ago.
0%
Description
On the page of field permissions (workflow) the private field is shown as required. This is not corret, because it isn't required.
Files
| workflow_ui_bug.png (14.9 KB) workflow_ui_bug.png | private field shown as required | Filou Centrinov, 2013-03-19 12:47 | |
| remove_required_on_is_private.diff (653 Bytes) remove_required_on_is_private.diff | remove required on is_private | Daniel Felix, 2013-03-19 18:31 |
Related issues
Updated by Daniel Felix about 11 years ago
- File remove_required_on_is_private.diff remove_required_on_is_private.diff added
- Assignee set to Toshi MARUYAMA
- Target version set to 2.3.1
Your right. This seems to be wrong.
I've attached a small patch. This solved the wrong display.
toshio harita: Maybe you could commit this?
I just set this to 2.3.1 as a Bugfix. If you think, that this should be included in 2.3 please be free to commit this. :-)
This shouldn't hold back the release of 2.3.0. :-)
Best regards,
Daniel
Updated by Dipan Mehta about 11 years ago
Actually, in any Boolean type fields - the notion of 'Required' vs. 'Not Required' has no significant. If you leave the field without touching and even if default value is not set - it actually defaults to 'false' and that is legitimate value. Alternatively, nothing can force the user to check or uncheck in case of Boolean fields even if you critically need input (by making it required)
So while, field may be required it wont force you to select the issues as private!
Updated by Daniel Felix about 11 years ago
Dipan Mehta wrote:
So while, field may be required it wont force you to select the issues as private!
Yes your right with your post, but it's definitly wrong that this field is marked as required in the workflow menu.
So this obviously seems to be a mistake. ;-)
Updated by Mischa The Evil about 11 years ago
Daniel Felix wrote:
So this obviously seems to be a mistake. ;-)
For what I can remember out-of-my-head this is done on a purpose related to how private issues were implemented. I'm not sure though...
Updated by Daniel Felix about 11 years ago
Yes this may be. But, you can't ensure a required on a checkbox in any way. this is by design. :-)
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang about 11 years ago
- Assignee changed from Toshi MARUYAMA to Jean-Philippe Lang
With this patch applied, the private flag can then be configured as required in the workflow permission configuration screen. Not sure that it's a better option.
Updated by Daniel Felix about 11 years ago
Yes this is right. This will be wrong too.
What do you think? would it be a better solution to prepare that no checkbox could be set to required?
Or change the way a required is applied on checkboxes?
For example:
Require on checkboxes is allowed and would be handled as "must check".
Some examples could be the disclaimer or something like that. This way you can force special roles to ensure that they accept some terms, for example.
But requiring a checkbox is a wrong behaviour in my opinion. :-)
Updated by Etienne Massip about 11 years ago
Daniel Felix wrote:
But requiring a checkbox is a wrong behaviour in my opinion. :-)
Well it actually implies no specific behavior, it's just inaccurate information.
Not sure it's worth changing it.
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang about 11 years ago
- Target version changed from 2.3.1 to Candidate for next major release
Updated by Mischa The Evil over 2 years ago
- Related to Feature #9432: Default value for the private issue flag added