Uploaded image for project: 'Kuali Rice Development'
  1. Kuali Rice Development
  2. KULRICE-3745

DB representation of boolean values on KIM screens not consistent with other modules

    Details

    • Type: Bug Fix
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 1.0.1, 1.0.2
    • Fix Version/s: 1.0.2
    • Component/s: Development
    • Labels:
      None
    • Rice Module:
      KIM

      Description

      See linked issue

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            jksmith James Smith added a comment -

            I just played with the Role and Person documents a little bit and, hooray, the repopulation isn't really an issue. This is because:

            a) the formatter seems to be handling the repopulate correctly, and
            b) there's actually only two times this needs to repopulate - on return from a lookup and on open from save. The qualifiers cannot be edited other than begin and end date once the document is submitted. Both of these cases work.

            That simplifies things a lot. I'll start working on the "Y"/"N" fix solution.

            Show
            jksmith James Smith added a comment - I just played with the Role and Person documents a little bit and, hooray, the repopulation isn't really an issue. This is because: a) the formatter seems to be handling the repopulate correctly, and b) there's actually only two times this needs to repopulate - on return from a lookup and on open from save. The qualifiers cannot be edited other than begin and end date once the document is submitted. Both of these cases work. That simplifies things a lot. I'll start working on the "Y"/"N" fix solution.
            Hide
            ewestfal Eric Westfall added a comment -

            Based on this James, it sounds like KFS is ok? If there is anything required on the kfs side, then I would say yes go ahead and create a KFS jira for it and let Jerry/Jonathan know.

            Show
            ewestfal Eric Westfall added a comment - Based on this James, it sounds like KFS is ok? If there is anything required on the kfs side, then I would say yes go ahead and create a KFS jira for it and let Jerry/Jonathan know.
            Hide
            jksmith James Smith added a comment -

            Got the solution nearly completely coded up and the found that sometimes you can add parameters to the parameter map and sometimes you can't. Interesting. So I'm thinking about how to make sure role qualifiers are created even if there's no parameter for them.

            I don't think KFS is okay because there's at least one role type that this has an effect upon - I'll send an e-mail to Jerry and Jonathan about it. But I do think they need a JIRA in their queue to handle this and depending on how they solve it, they may need this change out in the 1.0.1.1 patch.

            Sorry testing on this has gone so slowly. I am making progress.

            Show
            jksmith James Smith added a comment - Got the solution nearly completely coded up and the found that sometimes you can add parameters to the parameter map and sometimes you can't. Interesting. So I'm thinking about how to make sure role qualifiers are created even if there's no parameter for them. I don't think KFS is okay because there's at least one role type that this has an effect upon - I'll send an e-mail to Jerry and Jonathan about it. But I do think they need a JIRA in their queue to handle this and depending on how they solve it, they may need this change out in the 1.0.1.1 patch. Sorry testing on this has gone so slowly. I am making progress.
            Hide
            jksmith James Smith added a comment -

            Population of unchecked checkboxes is working, but the actual conversion to "Y" or "N" isn't yet - though I think this has to do with a mistake which hopefully I've just corrected. Testing it out now.

            Also found an error in TransactionalDocumentFormBase#reset - I'll JIRA that up today. It's not a blocker but it's kind of annoying because it throws stupid exceptions.

            Show
            jksmith James Smith added a comment - Population of unchecked checkboxes is working, but the actual conversion to "Y" or "N" isn't yet - though I think this has to do with a mistake which hopefully I've just corrected. Testing it out now. Also found an error in TransactionalDocumentFormBase#reset - I'll JIRA that up today. It's not a blocker but it's kind of annoying because it throws stupid exceptions.
            Hide
            jksmith James Smith added a comment -

            Okay, the fix for this is in. Role member qualifications using checkboxes on the Role and Person document should now be automatically converted into "Y" or "N". Please reopen this issue if issues remain.

            Show
            jksmith James Smith added a comment - Okay, the fix for this is in. Role member qualifications using checkboxes on the Role and Person document should now be automatically converted into "Y" or "N". Please reopen this issue if issues remain.

              People

              • Assignee:
                jksmith James Smith
                Reporter:
                gmcgrego Geoff McGregor
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                1 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved: