Kuali Rice Development
  1. Kuali Rice Development
  2. KULRICE-7339

Adhoc routing for completion - client side validation

    Details

    • Type: Task Task
    • Status: Closed Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 2.2
    • Fix Version/s: 2.5
    • Security Level: Public (Public: Anyone can view)
    • Labels:
      None
    • Similar issues:
      KULRICE-12622KRAD Demo: Client side validation for search criteria
      KULRICE-5156Validate client side flag on view not being looked at for client side validation
      KULRICE-6835Issues with client side validation
      KULRICE-4708Support for client side field validation
      KULRICE-6282AdHoc Route to Completion - MSU Contribution
      KULRICE-7026Alter behavior of client side validation
      KULRICE-7200Adding adhoc routing validation for PeopleFlow documents
      KULRICE-9032cancelling a document with client side validation disabled
      KULRICE-14261Enable client side validation in dialogs (backport KULRICE-12235)
      KULRICE-13010Investigate client side collection rendering
    • Rice Module:
      KRAD
    • Sprint:
      Core 2.5.0-m5 Sprint 1, Core 2.5.0-m5 Sprint 2, Core 2.5.0-m5 Sprint 2b, Core 2.5.0-m6 Sprint 1
    • KAI Review Status:
      Not Required
    • KTI Review Status:
      Not Required
    • Story Points:
      3

      Description

      An enhancement was added to the KNS for adhoc routing for completion. The backend is all in place in KRAD as well, however there are problems with the client side validation. Validation is set to trigger on the submit button. However, when an ad hoc request is added for completion, we need to suppress the validation. So we need a mechanism for custom script to suppress validation on a button.

      Currently the validation is enabled based on the method the button calls. After the ajax enhancements are complete, this should be a data flag that can easily be toggled with script.

      1. KNS Sample.jpg
        230 kB
      2. KRAD Sample.jpg
        173 kB

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          Steve Edgar (Inactive) added a comment -

          In the code review for this case, Claus says ...

          > Travel Company Maintenance document with a document description and adhoc edna
          > complete still doesn't route due to the required Company Name validation.

          I took a look this morning, and this happens after client side validation. (Brian and I had been testing up until we got the "Are you sure you want to submit this document and send it into routing?" dialog, as we were focusing on client side validation.) Thanks to Claus for catching this.

          I can look into this solo, however, we may want to consider the continued involvement of a KRAD specialist. Although I am new to the Rice project, this case appears to require in-depth knowledge of the KRAD system, which is large, complex, and under substantial development.

          The case requires KRAD be modified to handle a situation it is not currently designed to handle. While this can likely be done as a "patch", integrating this capability may be more desirable, and in my view doing so would best be done by a KRAD specialist, as they have a full and detailed view of that system.

          I think the history of this case demonstrates that. The current solution has required consulting from three experienced Rice team members to provide solutions, with those solutions needing revision four times by our two KRAD experts, as issues appeared with each solution.

          I am happy to continue to work on this case as its principal assignee, although a substantial amount of time has already been spent on this case, and so having me in a supporting/learning role may be more beneficial to the team, from an efficiency perspective, due to the nature of this case. At a minimum, I recommend pairing me with either Brian or Jerry, or reassigning this case to the KRAD team, to have its requirements integrated into KRAD's design.

          What do y'all think?

          Show
          Steve Edgar (Inactive) added a comment - In the code review for this case, Claus says ... > Travel Company Maintenance document with a document description and adhoc edna > complete still doesn't route due to the required Company Name validation. I took a look this morning, and this happens after client side validation. (Brian and I had been testing up until we got the "Are you sure you want to submit this document and send it into routing?" dialog, as we were focusing on client side validation.) Thanks to Claus for catching this. I can look into this solo, however, we may want to consider the continued involvement of a KRAD specialist. Although I am new to the Rice project, this case appears to require in-depth knowledge of the KRAD system, which is large, complex, and under substantial development. The case requires KRAD be modified to handle a situation it is not currently designed to handle. While this can likely be done as a "patch", integrating this capability may be more desirable, and in my view doing so would best be done by a KRAD specialist, as they have a full and detailed view of that system. I think the history of this case demonstrates that. The current solution has required consulting from three experienced Rice team members to provide solutions, with those solutions needing revision four times by our two KRAD experts, as issues appeared with each solution. I am happy to continue to work on this case as its principal assignee, although a substantial amount of time has already been spent on this case, and so having me in a supporting/learning role may be more beneficial to the team, from an efficiency perspective, due to the nature of this case. At a minimum, I recommend pairing me with either Brian or Jerry, or reassigning this case to the KRAD team, to have its requirements integrated into KRAD's design. What do y'all think?
          Hide
          Steve Edgar (Inactive) added a comment -

          Update... after tracing through some things... this is still a client side validation situation. The OK button on the dialog, which appears after client side validation passes, executes another round of client side valuation, however this time the "custom validation" is not invoked.

          Show
          Steve Edgar (Inactive) added a comment - Update... after tracing through some things... this is still a client side validation situation. The OK button on the dialog, which appears after client side validation passes, executes another round of client side valuation, however this time the "custom validation" is not invoked.
          Hide
          Steve Edgar (Inactive) added a comment -

          Consulted with Brian. An addition to the previous solution was required, which turns off validation in the "Are you sure you want to submit this document and send it into routing?" confirmation dialog. This avoids the "second stock client side validation" that we were seeing. Note that validation is now turned off for confirmation dialogs for Uif-PrimaryActionButton, which is the "stock" Submit button. This is okay in my testing, but want to note it here for reference, in case something is later discovered.

          Show
          Steve Edgar (Inactive) added a comment - Consulted with Brian. An addition to the previous solution was required, which turns off validation in the "Are you sure you want to submit this document and send it into routing?" confirmation dialog. This avoids the "second stock client side validation" that we were seeing. Note that validation is now turned off for confirmation dialogs for Uif-PrimaryActionButton, which is the "stock" Submit button. This is okay in my testing, but want to note it here for reference, in case something is later discovered.
          Hide
          Brian Smith (Inactive) added a comment -

          To clarify, we are overriding the buttons in the dialog to explicitly turn off validation on the for the confirm dialog here

          Show
          Brian Smith (Inactive) added a comment - To clarify, we are overriding the buttons in the dialog to explicitly turn off validation on the for the confirm dialog here
          Hide
          Steve Edgar (Inactive) added a comment -

          As per Claus, the code review is complete ...

          > Brian took a peek at KULRICE-7339 and it's ok to resolve.

          Show
          Steve Edgar (Inactive) added a comment - As per Claus, the code review is complete ... > Brian took a peek at KULRICE-7339 and it's ok to resolve.

            People

            • Assignee:
              Steve Edgar (Inactive)
              Reporter:
              Jerry Neal (Inactive)
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              4 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Agile

                  Structure Helper Panel