Details
-
Type:
New Feature
-
Status:
Open
-
Priority:
Major
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
Affects Version/s: None
-
Fix Version/s: None
-
Component/s: Development
-
Security Level: Public (Public: Anyone can view)
-
Labels:
-
Similar issues:
KULRICE-4766Allow configuration of fields that should be cleared on maintenance copy action KULRICE-10662 Maintenance locking keys should default to primary keys if not defined KULRICE-3569DocumentBase toCopy method should clear out object id KULRICE-10317Finish Implementation on KRAD Maintenance clearUnauthorizedNewFields on copy KULRICE-3072Allow maintenance documents to copy PK fields KULRICE-13943When editing or copying objects supported by the data object service, primary key type conversion is not performed KULRICE-8055Allow for specifications of behavior on copy of maintenance document KULRICE-11474 KRAD Sampleapp Maintenance Copy Id blank on save KULRICE-13632Create Smoke Tests for KRAD Maintenance Document Copy Features KULRICE-4306Can't clear an optional user field -
Epic Link:
-
Rice Module:KRAD
-
Application Requirement:KFS, KC
-
Sprint:Middleware 2.5.2 Sprint 3, Middleware 2.5.2 Sprint 4, Middleware 2.5.2 Sprint 5
-
KAI Review Status:Not Required
-
KTI Review Status:Not Required
-
Code Review Status:Not Required
-
Include in Release Notes?:Yes
-
Story Points:5
Description
Reported via James Smith:
About a month ago, I discovered an issue in TEM where a business object with children was being maintained on a maint doc. The business object itself and more importantly, the collection of children objects, all used synthetic keys based on a sequence as their PK’s, and on copy, I found we had to clear the PK’s manually in the processAfterCopy on the maintainable so that the PK’s were reassigned with the document saved them again; if we didn’t do the key clearing, then the children business objects were “stolen” by the object created by the copy and removed from the original. I talked to Doug Pace to see what KC did about this, and he saw two examples of this: one where they cleared the keys and one where they had forgotten (causing the “stealing” issue). Again: I’m not sure what help KRAD could provide to avoid this situation but it’s so easy to forget and cause problems that if there was a way to fix it, I think it would be very helpful for all of the client applications.
At this time, it looks like we are clearing the basic primary keys but do not have the code to clear all keys associated with the maintenance document, like those on collections or those on child objects. We should be doing this if preserveLockingKeysOnCopy is not set. Verify whether this is still a problem in KRAD and fix it if it is.
Issue Links
- cloned to
-
KULRICE-14154 Analysis for db changes on git
-
- discovered
-
KULRICE-14096 Cannot copy TravelAccount when it has subAccounts
-
Can you provide a link to the CGB Code Changes related to this ticket?