Details
-
Type:
Bug Fix
-
Status: Closed
-
Priority:
Major
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Affects Version/s: None
-
Fix Version/s: 1.0
-
Component/s: Quality Assurance, User Interface
-
Labels:None
-
Rice Team:QA
Description
On the Travel Request creation page, I've noticed several problems with the "Travel Account" field. First, if the user clicks the lookup link on the field and then either clicks "cancel" or returns a value from the lookup, the iframe shows a blank white page. This problem also occurs if the user opens the field's direct inquiry link with Javascript disabled and then clicks "close". I believe the problem lies with the fact that TravelDocumentAction2.refresh simply does nothing other than returning null, so this method needs to be implemented appropriately.
Another problem with the "Travel Account" field is the list of accounts that it maintains. Whenever the user clicks "add", a new item is added to the list regardless of whether or not the text field is empty or contains invalid data. If the data is valid, the account appears to be properly added to the list; otherwise, a supposedly blank entry is added to the list, which can result in NullPointerException-induced HTTP 500 errors when saving or routing the document. In addition, there does not appear to be any way to remove list items once they have been placed in, and it is possible to include duplicate account entries.
I've fixed the "Travel Account" field's problems mentioned above, so it should be working as expected now. However, I discovered one other odd detail that I wanted to get feedback on before resolving this issue. I noticed that the Travel Request creation page includes a drop-down for choosing a particular account type code, yet the "Travel Account" field allows users to add travel accounts of any type to its list, regardless of whether or not they conform to the selected type code. Is this intentional, or is there supposed to be some sort of validation in place to ensure that the added travel accounts have the proper code? Or is the drop-down intended for some other purpose?