[rt-users] Categories are based on... How to handle the same value for multiple parent categories
Jim Lesinski
jim.lesinski at gmail.com
Wed Nov 16 09:12:26 EST 2011
Just a final note on this - After doing some more investigation, it seems
that while Request Tracker doesn't restrict you from creating 2 (or more)
drop down values at the same level with the same string value, it also
does't use the record ID to filter subsequent drop downs either. - it uses
the string value to filter subsequent values. This means if you have 3
fields that filter you end up with a mess of child values that may not
relate to the parent value anyway.
So it seems that adding a prefix or suffix to the text of the drop down
value is the only way to achieve what I had wanted.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Josh Narins <jnarins at seniorbridge.com>wrote:
> The array of names is get-at-able with "keys %seen"
>
>
> *From*: Jim Lesinski [mailto:jim.lesinski at gmail.com]
> *Sent*: Monday, November 14, 2011 08:19 PM
> *To*: Josh Narins
> *Cc*: rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com <rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com>
> *Subject*: Re: [rt-users] Categories are based on... How to handle the
> same value for multiple parent categories
>
> Right, but I think then I'd have to build an array of names and then
> iterate through that second array to output the option values. I am not
> sure which would be more efficient but there is probably a better way to do
> it.
>
> Either way the result of the code would be ideally added to the base code,
> but not necessarily my personal code :)
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Lesinski
>
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 7:10 PM, Josh Narins <jnarins at seniorbridge.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know anything about your patch, but with Perl, it is more
> common to write something like...
>
> next if $seen{ $value->Name }++;
>
>
>
> *From*: Jim Lesinski [mailto:jim.lesinski at gmail.com]
> *Sent*: Monday, November 14, 2011 07:06 PM
> *To*: rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com <rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com>
> *Subject*: Re: [rt-users] Categories are based on... How to handle the
> same value for multiple parent categories
>
> I had some time after work to code up a possible solution for the
> searchbuilder. I am new to perl so feel free to correct me.
>
> Below is a snippet of code from /html/Elements/SelectCustomFieldValue,
> starting at line 48. I have added my name after the lines I added to make
> the search builder drop down show only unique string values. It would be
> super cool if this made it into the base code.
>
> % $m->callback( Name => $Name, CustomField => $CustomField );
> % if ($CustomField->Type =~ /Select/i) {
> % my $values = $CustomField->Values;
>
> % my %seen = (); # Jim Lesinski
>
> <select name="<%$Name%>">
> <option value="" selected="selected">-</option>
> <option value="NULL"><&|/l&>(no value)</&></option>
> % while (my $value = $values->Next) {
> % unless ($seen{$value->Name}){ # Jim Lesinski
> <option value="<%$value->Name%>"><%$value->Name%></option>
> % $seen{$value->Name} = 1; # Jim Lesinski
> % } # Jim Lesinski
> % }
> </select>
> % }
> % else {
> <input name="<%$Name%>" size="20" />
> % }
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Jim Lesinski <jim.lesinski at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't think that the searchbuilder would show the same string value
>> though if you have the value occurring multiple times based on a parent
>> field. In my example below the value "softwarename1.1" will show up in the
>> searchbuilder each time I have entered it for that field.
>>
>> What I was suggesting is that one way to handle this would be to make the
>> searchbuilder page only add a string value if that string value doesn't
>> exist in the values already. That seems like the simplest was to avoid the
>> same value from showing up several times in the searchbuilder.
>>
>> Right now what happens is, you end up with 4 "Password Reset" Values in
>> the example below. This also would create 4 "Password Reset" in the
>> searchbuilder dropdown, which works because the search is based on the
>> String value and not the ID of the record.
>>
>> * Active Directory
>> * Password Reset
>> * TimeSheet
>> * Password Reset
>> * TestDomain
>> * Password Reset
>> * Whatever
>> * Password Reset
>>
>>
>> Just a suggestion... but an excellent way to handle it may be to add
>> functionality to the "Categories are based on" drop down so that you select
>> the parent field first, and then select each value that the current value
>> is visible for. This would let you have a more flexible relationship for
>> building the hierarchy.
>>
>> Then you could select Field1 as the Parent for Field2, but also specify
>> that Field2.Value1 would be an option when you select Field1.Value1,
>> Field1.Value3, Field1.Value4, Field1.Value7 - etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Kevin Falcone <
>> falcone at bestpractical.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 03:01:18PM -0500, Jim Lesinski wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> > In request tracker, how would you recommend setting up your
>>> dependent drop down lists that
>>> > have a consistent drop down value for multiple parent values?
>>> Below, under the 1st level
>>> > Administration value, I show an example of what I am asking about.
>>>
>>> If you use the 'Categories are based on' feature in later 3.8 and 4.0
>>> you'll get much better search options than typing in the Category box.
>>>
>>> > * Hardware
>>> >
>>> > * item1.1
>>> > * item1.2
>>> > * item1.3
>>> >
>>> > * Software
>>> >
>>> > * item2.1
>>> > * item2.2
>>> > * item2.3
>>> >
>>> > * Administration
>>> >
>>> > * password reset
>>> >
>>> > * softwarename1.1
>>> > * softwarename1.2
>>> > * softwarename1.3
>>> >
>>> > * profile update
>>> >
>>> > * softwarename1.1
>>> > * softwarename1.2
>>> > * softwarename1.3
>>> >
>>> > I was able to set up the outline above by using the built in
>>> "categories are based on" option
>>> > for drop down lists and entering the value one time for each parent
>>> value. The only thing that
>>> > I see as a possible issue with doing this is that the search
>>> builder then shows the drop down
>>> > text value multiple times. Maybe just a bug or improvement that
>>> could be made in the
>>> > searchbuilder (ie; only show DISTINCT dropdownlist value)? Or
>>> should I handle this a different
>>> > way?
>>> > Either way I would appreciate your insight.
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Jim
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> *Josh Narins*
>>> Director of Application Development
>>> SeniorBridge
>>>
>>> 845 Third Ave
>>> 7th Floor
>>> New York, NY 10022
>>> Tel: (212) 994-6194
>>> Fax: (212) 994-4260
>>> Mobile: (917) 488-6248
>>> jnarins at seniorbridge.com
>>> seniorbridge.com <http://www.seniorbridge.com/>
>>>
>>> [image: SeniorBridge]
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *SeniorBridge Statement of Confidentiality:* The contents of this email
>>> message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may
>>> contain confidential or privileged information. Any dissemination,
>>> distribution or copying of this email by an unintended or mistaken
>>> recipient is strictly prohibited. In said event, kindly reply to the sender
>>> and destroy all entries of this message and any attachments from your
>>> system. Thank you.--------
>>> > RT Training Sessions (http://bestpractical.com/services/training.html)
>>> > * Barcelona, Spain ? November 28 & 29, 2011
>>>
>>>
>>> --------
>>> RT Training Sessions (http://bestpractical.com/services/training.html)
>>> * Barcelona, Spain — November 28 & 29, 2011
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-users/attachments/20111116/f41fb62e/attachment.htm>
More information about the rt-users
mailing list