In an existing subscription where non published issues have been planned through the checkboxes of the prediction patern test, if you modify later a parameter (adding a note for example) without launching the prediction test (you think it's unuseful because you didn't modify the planning itself), there's is no alert,theese data are deleted. Olivier Crouzet
Created attachment 46341 [details] [review] Add warning when irregularities are set in a subscription pattern
Created attachment 46385 [details] [review] Bug 15501 - Planned Irregularities are deleted when modifying subscription Test plan : Before applying patch 1) Go to serials Home page 2) Choose an existing subscription (from a daily, weekly or monthly serial) and edit 3) Go to second page and launch the prediction pattern test 4) Check some checkboxes 5) Save. 6) Edit again and add a note on first page 7) Go to next page and Save : you can see there had been no alert. 8) Edit again, go to next page and launch prediction pattern test : You see that the checkboxes you had selected are not any more checked. Now apply the patch and redo all steps 2 to 6. 7) when you click on Save button, an alert warn you that you must launch the prediciton test before. Do it and save. 8) When you edit again and launch again the prediction test, you can see that the checkboxes selected are still checked.
Is it still ready to be signed off?
Created attachment 46411 [details] [review] Bug 15501 - Planned Irregularities are deleted when modifying subscription Add a warning to avoid saving a subscription whitout testing prediction pattern when there are planned no published issues Signed-off-by: Liz Rea <liz@catalyst.net.nz> Ran through test plan, looks all good.
Created attachment 46422 [details] [review] Bug 15501 - Planned Irregularities are deleted when modifying subscription Add a warning to avoid saving a subscription whitout testing prediction pattern when there are planned no published issues Signed-off-by: Liz Rea <liz@catalyst.net.nz> Ran through test plan, looks all good. Signed-off-by: Kyle M Hall <kyle@bywatersolutions.com>
Pushed to master - Thanks
Patch pushed to 3.22.x, will be in 3.22.2
Isn't this line problematic? [% IF ( irregularity ) %]patternneedtobetested=1[% END %] Shouldn't it be (with ;): [% IF ( irregularity ) %]patternneedtobetested=1;[% END %]
(In reply to Frédéric Demians from comment #8) > Isn't this line problematic? > > [% IF ( irregularity ) %]patternneedtobetested=1[% END %] > > Shouldn't it be (with ;): > > [% IF ( irregularity ) %]patternneedtobetested=1;[% END %] I have just tested: no JS error with irregularities. But it's obviously an error, must be fixed.
Arghhh! you are right, I will post a follow-up Olivier Crouzet