Bug 5335 introduced a new "Acquisition details" block on the subscription details page. It is placed between to tabs and causes an ergonomic issue.
Created attachment 17787 [details] [review] Bug 10145: The acquisition details block is badly placed. Bug 5335 introduced a new "Acquisition details" block on the subscription details page. It is placed between to tabs and causes an ergonomic issue. Test plan: - Order a subscription. - Go on the subscription detail page and select a tab. - The "Acquisition details" block is moved from the bottom to the top of the table. - Apply the patch - The "Acquisition details" block is always on the bottom of the table.
Can we get a sign off for this? :)
Created attachment 17863 [details] [review] [SIGNED OFF] Bug 10145: The acquisition details block is badly placed. Bug 5335 introduced a new "Acquisition details" block on the subscription details page. It is placed between to tabs and causes an ergonomic issue. Test plan: - Order a subscription. - Go on the subscription detail page and select a tab. - The "Acquisition details" block is moved from the bottom to the top of the table. - Apply the patch - The "Acquisition details" block is always on the bottom of the table. Signed-off-by: David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au>
Works great.
Created attachment 17866 [details] [review] [PASSED QA] Bug 10145: The acquisition details block is badly placed. Bug 5335 introduced a new "Acquisition details" block on the subscription details page. It is placed between to tabs and causes an ergonomic issue. Test plan: - Order a subscription. - Go on the subscription detail page and select a tab. - The "Acquisition details" block is moved from the bottom to the top of the table. - Apply the patch - The "Acquisition details" block is always on the bottom of the table. Signed-off-by: David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> Signed-off-by: Katrin Fischer <Katrin.Fischer.83@web.de> Fixes display problem, passes all tests.
This patch has been pushed to master and 3.12.x.
Doesn't apply to 3.10.x please rebase if it is needed
(In reply to comment #7) > Doesn't apply to 3.10.x please rebase if it is needed Not needed for 3.10.x In fact, it depends on bug 5343, not 5335.