Defect #25806
open
Custom value from freshly disabled custom field in sub-project remains in issues list for parent project.
Added by Stephane Evr almost 7 years ago.
Updated almost 7 years ago.
Description
Create a project hierarchy such as:
P1
|
P1.1
Create and Activate Issue Custom field C1 in Both projects.
Create an issue I1 in P1.1 with a value for field C1
Deactivate C1 in P1.1
Do not do any modification to I1
Go to P1 Issues view
Add C1 to selectedcolumns
Apply
Actual: Former value of C1 for I1 still shows
Expected: value of C1 for I1 shall be empty.
I know that if I save I1 after deactivating C1, the associated custom value for C1 will be erased, but the 'index' view should remain consistent with the 'show' view without having to manually perform a save.
- Category set to Custom fields
- Status changed from New to Confirmed
Stephane Evr wrote:
Actual: Former value of C1 for I1 still shows
Expected: value of C1 for I1 shall be empty.
I can confirm this behaviour as a valid defect on
source:/trunk@16580. While I can see why that custom value isn't erased from the issue, it does causes some unexpected/undesired behaviours:
- on P1's issue list with custom field column added: the custom value is displayed after the custom field is disabled in the P1.1 child project
- on P1's issue list: filtering on the custom field won't match issue I1 (while I1 has a custom value set)
- on P1.1's issue list: custom field column is not available anymore (making it impossible to retrieve I1's currently set custom value)
- on P1.1's issue list: custom field filter is not available anymore (making it impossible to filter on 1's set custom value, if such filtering was already working correctly)
- on I1's issue show: the set custom value (in fact the whole [inline] custom field column) is not displayed anywhere
So, either the custom values shall be deleted upon such a custom field deactivation or the filter/column should be kept available and filtering shall be made possible on these custom field values for these disabled custom fields.
What do others think about this?
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Updated by