[rt-users] Strange things with RT 3.8.2 Approval system

[Chia-liang Kao]

Hi,

L B <bertignac <at> gmail.com> writes:
> ##################
> ## SCENARIO 1
> ##################
> Remarks at the end of this scenario:
> - I think the other approvers should receive a notification that the
> ticket has been approved by one of them : do I have to add the
> MYPROJECT_APPROVERS as admincc of the queue ? If I do this, standard
> scrip will be applied, should I remove some of them ?

see if it works if you add user2 to the cc of the approval scrip template for
user1, and vice versa for user1 in template for user2.

> - The two emails are not exactly the same : one saying other approvals
> may be pending, the other saying all of them are approved: how can I
> send an email when the request is partially approved, and another
> email once all the approvals are done ? For example, emails "Approved
> by USER1", "Approved by USER2", "Approved by all the approvers"

In RT::Approval::Rule::Passed, the partially approved and all approved cases are
simply using different templates ('Approval Passed' and 'All Approvals Passed',
respectively).   I don't think the workflow currently supporting sending both
types of mails in the last approval that triggers complete approval.


> - There is a comment in the email content saying "a summary of which
> appears below." which is false. How can make it true ?

The section is the "Content" part in your template. you can use strings such as
{$Tickets{"TOP"}->Subject} to refer to the subject of the ticket to be approved
in the template.

> ##################
> ## SCENARIO 2
> ##################
> - Why is the comment of the USER1 rejecting the ticket is missing ?
> USER1 did a comment in the web interface but it doesn't appear neither
> in the email nor in the web ticket log.
> - IMO, it shouldn't be possible to approve a ticket once it has been
> rejected by one of the approvers. Moreover, there is in the email "Its
> Owner may now start to act on it." which is not true.
> 
> Maybe these problems are related to my configuration, so is my
> configuration correct ? Do I use the approval system how it's designed
> to be used ?

I believe these are bugs.  I can take a look later.

Cheers,
CLK