[rt-users] Custom Fields and Rights Question / maybe a bug

Wed Aug 8 14:41:26 EDT 2007

Regarding what makes a field "mandatory":

What I'd love to see (and what I initially assumed the "mandatory" option
provided) was for fields to be required before a ticket could be resolved.

We have yet to implement the mandatory feature on any queues here because,
for the vast majority of the time, the fields we'd love to require don't
contain information we have when the request is made, but rather pertain to
the steps/process we go through to resolve a ticket.

It would be great if, in future versions, you could specify mandatory for
ticket creation and mandatory for ticket resolution.

Forrest

On 8/8/07, Ruslan Zakirov <ruz at bestpractical.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/8/07, Ham MI-ID, Torsten Brumm <torsten.brumm at kuehne-nagel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmmmm, an new right would not fix the core of the problem....i think
> this
> > not only occurs on create, this can also hapen at resolve time.
> What exactly can happen?
>
> >
> >  From the workflow point of view we have the situation that a user
> creates a
> > ticket with only limited rights, later groups working at the same ticket
> > have more rights and have to set this cf, later groups only need to see
> what
> > happens with this ticket and resolve this...
> Ok, if user who creates a ticket has no right to set/modify a CF and
> some privileged user should set it later, then why this CF is
> mandatory? I think it shouldn't be.
>
> >
> >  I think to bypass the mandatory check and only display the cf if needed
> but
> > with no chance to ut something should be a cleaner solution?!?
> "ut" == "put"?
>
> What should we show? Disabled input/select box? User can not set a
> field then why should we confuse him by showing it?
>
> >
> >  Torsten
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: ruslan.zakirov at gmail.com <ruslan.zakirov at gmail.com>
> >  To: Ham MI-ID, Torsten Brumm
> >  CC: rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
> > <rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com>
> >  Sent: Wed Aug 08 18:02:08 2007
> >  Subject: Re: Re: [rt-users] Custom Fields and Rights Question / maybe a
> bug
> >
> >  If a CF is mandatory then all users who can create tickets in queues
> >  CF applies to must have 'ModifyCustomField' right. I think this way.
> >  Do you have another ideas? At least as I understand this the way it
> >  work now.
> >
> >  I was thinking about while fixing bug in 3.7 and came to two ideas:
> >  1) Mandatory CFs must have default value. So when people couldn't set
> >  a CF then we apply default and the fact that the CF is mandatory
> >  doesn't prevent creation.
> >  2) We can add new 'SetCustomFieldOnCreate' right which can be useful
> >  in many workflows and also admins would be able to allow users to
> >  create tickets with mandatory fields, but deny changing a field after
> >  that.
> >
> >  Both ideas are subject of RT 3.8 only, as I said we can only back port
> >  a patch from 3.8 to avoid confusion of users and admins.
> >
> >  On 8/8/07, Ham MI-ID, Torsten Brumm <torsten.brumm at kuehne-nagel.com>
> wrote:
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Hi ruslan,
> >  >
> >  >  Yes for a normal cf this is not critical, but together with a cf set
> to
> >  > mandatory this becomes critical, because the user is not able to
> create a
> >  > ticket via gui anymore for this queue :-(
> >  >
> >  >  Torsten
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >  -----Original Message-----
> >  >  From: ruslan.zakirov at gmail.com <ruslan.zakirov at gmail.com>
> >  >  To: Ham MI-ID, Torsten Brumm
> >  >  CC: rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
> >  > <rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com>
> >  >  Sent: Wed Aug 08 16:13:33 2007
> >  >  Subject: Re: [rt-users] Custom Fields and Rights Question / maybe a
> bug
> >  >
> >  >  On 8/8/07, Ham MI-ID, Torsten Brumm <torsten.brumm at kuehne-nagel.com>
> > wrote:
> >  >  > Hi RT Users, Developers,
> >  >  >
> >  >  > i'm not 100% sure if this is a bug or if i'm again too dumb...
> >  >  >
> >  >  > For a Custom Field, I can grant the following Group Rights:
> >  >  >
> >  >  > SeeCustomField
> >  >  > ModifyCustomField
> >  >  > AdminCustomField
> >  >  >
> >  >  > >From my point of understanding, SeeCustomFields allows a user to
> see
> > the
> >  > CF and it's content, but not to change it?
> >  >  right
> >  >
> >  >  >
> >  >  > ModifyCustomFields grant him the right to change the Content of
> the CF
> >  > and AdminCF grants him the right to change this CF, is this correct
> so
> > far?
> >  >  AdminCF allow user to admin a CF, add new possible values, change
> > type...
> >  >  ModifyCF allow user to modify value(s) of a CF on tickets or objects
> >  >  this particular CF applies to.
> >  >
> >  >  >
> >  >  > If the point above is correct, then if a user that only have the
> > rights
> >  > SeeCustomField should only be able to see this field and content, but
> > should
> >  > not be able to change the content?
> >  >  right.
> >  >
> >  >  >
> >  >  > OK, now my problem and why I'm thinking that's a bug...
> >  >  >
> >  >  > If a user creates a ticket in a queue with a custom field assigned
> and
> > he
> >  > has only the right SeeCustomField at this CF, he should see the field
> but
> >  > should not be able to enter something there?!? But he is...!...is
> this
> > the
> >  > correct way of handling the ACL or do I something wrong?
> >  >  Yeah, there is a small bug on create. User see fields he can see
> even
> >  >  if he can't modify them, but as far as I know user gets 'permission
> >  >  denied' after creation for fields he can't modify.
> >  >
> >  >  In 3.7 development branch we don't show fields user can't modify on
> >  >  the create ticket page anymore. I think we can backport that fix.
> >  >
> >  >  >
> >  >  > Its under RT 3.6.4 and I have double checked the rights, the
> global
> >  > rights, group rights and user rights...
> >  >  >
> >  >  > Any Ideas or hints or understand I the rights Setup for CF totally
> >  > wrong???
> >  >  > --
> >  >  >  Thanks in advance
> >  >  >  ....
> >  >  >     : Torsten Brumm
> >  >  >     :
> >  >  >     : Kuehne + Nagel
> >  >  >     : HAM - MI-ID
> >  >  >     :
> >  >  >     : Bauerbergweg 23-25
> >  >  >     : 22111 Hamburg
> >  >  >     :
> >  >  >     : +49 (40) 30333 3199
> >  >  >     : +49 (40) 30333 44 3199
> >  >  >     :
> >  >  >     : torsten.brumm at kuehne-nagel.com
> >  >  >     : www.kn-portal.com
> >  >  >     : icq: 78258840
> >  >  >     ....
> >  >  >
> >  >  >
> >  >  > Kühne + Nagel (AG & Co.) KG, Geschäftsleitung: Hans-Georg
> Brinkmann
> >  > (Vors.), Uwe Bielang (Stellv.), Dr. Björn Johansson (Stellv.), Bruno
> > Mang,
> >  > Alfred Manke, Thorsten Meincke, Mark Reinhardt (Stellv.), Tim
> Scharwath,
> >  > Jens Wollesen Sitz: Bremen, Registergericht: Bremen, HRA 21928,
> > USt-IdNr.:
> >  > DE 812773878, Persönlich haftende Gesellschaft: Kühne & Nagel A.G.,
> Sitz:
> >  > Contern/LuxemburgGeschäftsführender Verwaltungsrat:
> >  > Klaus-Michael Kühne
> >  >  > _______________________________________________
> >  >  >
> >  >
> > http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> >  >  >
> >  >  > Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
> >  >  > Commercial support: sales at bestpractical.com
> >  >  >
> >  >  >
> >  >  > Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly
> Media.
> >  >  > Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
> >  >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >  --
> >  >  Best regards, Ruslan.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  Best regards, Ruslan.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards, Ruslan.
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
>
> Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
> Commercial support: sales at bestpractical.com
>
>
> Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
> Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-users/attachments/20070808/8c5e68b1/attachment.htm>