[Rt-devel] Bug? Imbalance in linking history

Todd Chapman todd at chaka.net
Thu Nov 3 22:12:31 EST 2005

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:11:18AM +0100, Rolf Grossmann wrote:
> Todd Chapman wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:36:39AM +0300, Ruslan Zakirov wrote:
> > 
> >>+1 about two transactions
> >>
> >>But IMO we should run scrips twice, reasons:
> >>1) would be consistent solution, as less exceptions we have as more
> >>maintainable and refactorable our code is;
> >>2) scrip in normal stage must have three context objects: ticket,
> >>transaction, template; if you run scrips only for one transaction then
> >>authors of the scrips have to dig additional context objects themself
> >>which leads to new questions on the rt-users.
> >>3) previouse behaviour is bug and if scrips follow buggy behaviour
> >>then them should be changed;
> >>4) ...
> > 
> > One scrip / two scrips, I'm not sure. What do you think Jesse? I
> > don't want to think about working on a patch unless there is
> > some agreement.
> If I may voice an opinion here, I also think that for the sake of
> consistency, scrips should be run for every transaction.
> I can, however, think of another solution to the missing transaction:
> Make the depended-on-by and referred-to-by fields either display-only or
> have them create the transaction on the target object. That way it's
> clear that the transaction is always on the originating end of the referral.

That seems to imply that one end of the link is more important than the other,
and I don't think that's the case. Base and Target are just conventions, and
it could have easily been reversed.

> Rolf.
> _______________________________________________
> Rt-devel mailing list
> Rt-devel at lists.bestpractical.com
> http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel

More information about the Rt-devel mailing list