Uploaded image for project: 'Kuali Rice Development'
  1. Kuali Rice Development
  2. KULRICE-7339

Adhoc routing for completion - client side validation

    Details

    • Type: Task
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 2.2
    • Fix Version/s: 2.5
    • Security Level: Public (Public: Anyone can view)
    • Labels:
      None
    • 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.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

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

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved: