incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matevž Bradač" <>
Subject Re: Bug in ticket workflow?
Date Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:50:23 GMT

On 25. Mar, 2013, at 16:13, Joachim Dreimann wrote:

> On 25 March 2013 12:40, Branko Čibej <> wrote:
>> On 25.03.2013 12:46, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
>>> On 23 March 2013 14:19, Branko Čibej <> wrote:
>>>> I just noticed this ticket:
>>>> Its status was "assigned" but it had no owner, as Joe removed himself a
>>>> while ago. Just now I modified it and selected "unassign", and its
>>>> status is now "new", however, it still has no owner, even though I'd
>>>> expect the owner to be "nobody".
>>>> Both states seem inconsistent to me. Is this lack of proper attribute
>>>> dependency tracking an inherent bug in Trac, or did we introduce it
>>>> somehow, perhaps with the UI changes?
>>> I can replicate something very similar using Edgewall's Trac 1.0 demo,
>> see
>>> this ticket I created today:
>>> "nobody" is treated like any other user in Trac, someone has to type the
>>> name into the Owner field. An empty string or <null> are not equal to
>>> "nobody" because it has no meaning, and like you say there is
>>> no dependency tracking.
>> Right. So the question is, do we add such dependency tracking on our
>> todo list (post-1.0 of course)? I think it would make sense to do that.
>> By implication, "nobody" would be treated specially; on the other hand,
>> it seems that a null owner would be more appropriate, as long as one
>> can't have a ticket assigned to null.
> I agree that using null is the right approach.

On another note, Trac seems to allow assigning tickets to non-existant users,
without any warning. Should we at least warn the users of a potential mistake,
or perhaps even prevent it (though this might be a bit extreme)?

> -- 
> Joe Dreimann | *User Experience Designer* | WANdisco<>
> @jdreimann <>


View raw message