[rt-users] BUG: has StealTicket but gets "You can only take tickets which are unowned?"

[Kenneth Crocker]

Jo Rhett,


	I only grant ticket owners the "ModifyTicket" right, so noone CAN 
bulkudate a ticket that isn't theirs.


Kenn
LBNL

On 3/5/2009 2:11 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> I think you're missing the point though.  If you don't allow Stealticket 
> then this wouldn't matter.  The only question is "if they can Steal the 
> ticket, why force them to take duplicate steps" ?
> 
> I don't understand why you don't want more control for Bulk Update.  So 
> any of your users can cause every one of your ticket requestors to get a 
> blank message ... and this is good how?
> 
> The point here is to allow each organization to work how they like 
> best.  Don't take away StealTicket just because you don't allow it.  
> Just don't assign the right.
> 
> On Mar 4, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
>>     I agree with Jesse. Although it is a pain in the rump to have to 
>> go thru 2 steps to re-assign a ticket, I am of the mind that when you 
>> lossen the the reins of ownership (and for that matter let too many 
>> users have the "ModifyTicket" right.) you run the risk of "owners" 
>> undoing each others work. We allow only 2 users to have the 
>> "ModifyTicket" right, Owners and the AdminCc (which for us is the 
>> Queue Manager). We only allow the Queue manager to have the 
>> "StealTicket" right. The reason is that for us, tight control of 
>> tickets and the work on them is critical. We just can't allow users 
>> the ability to point at one another and say "he did it".
>>     Obviously, there are MANY RT installations that are smaller and 
>> need WAY less control. However, I would prefer that we have a choice 
>> of "degree" for control, like in the RT_SiteConfig, rather than just 
>> opening it all up OR removing such features as "Bulk Update", which I 
>> use a lot when setting up new queues or when a queue needs to do a 
>> mass change to a CF or something.
>>     just a thought.
>>
>>
>> Kenn
>> LBNL
>>
>> On 3/4/2009 11:33 AM, Jesse Vincent wrote:
>>> On Wed  4.Mar'09 at 11:29:38 -0800, Jo Rhett wrote:
>>>> Reading the code in Ticket_Overlay around line 2730-2750 it would  
>>>> appear that this is deliberate.  For someone to reassign a ticket 
>>>> to  someone else on their reply, they must be the current owner.  
>>>> For me  to take it back and close it, I need to separately Steal it, 
>>>> then  Resolve it.
>>>>
>>>> Would you accept a patch that allows implicit Steal like this?
>>>>
>>> Nope. That would entirely defeat ownership-as-locking. 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>