Feature #13147

worflow enhancement: overleap status if allowed

Added by Terence Mill over 9 years ago. Updated over 9 years ago.

Status:NewStart date:
Priority:HighDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:


Category:Issues workflow
Target version:-


We really would like to see roles in worflows with status ranstation a followed by b followed by

a>b>c being able to set status from a tp c direcly without being necesarry to set b explicit.

B can be overleaped and c set directly from a if role is allowed to set c in status transitio chain.

This is very useful if you make worflows being able to handle small to big process and in small case some steps can de left out if user is allowed to.

At the moment the user has to do some clicking mania ti set all status between a and c (or even z)


#1 Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang over 9 years ago

Why don't you just allow a->c in the workflow configuration for this role?

#2 Updated by Terence Mill over 9 years ago

The reason is that this combinations (a to c) results from more than one role you need to have

role 1 (manager): allows a->b
role 2 (tester): allows b>c

I can't configure allow a>c, that would need to create a "workaround" role and habe to give this persons this role instead of both roles to be able to set the status directly.Thats what i am doing at the moment (e.g: ManagerAndTester), but acceptance is bad and it has many problems . That is really annoying as it also results in technical roles (many combinations, e. manager and devloper, manageranddeveloper andtester) and blows the roles list for rights managment then too, also in project overview etc..

You right if you think wtf they have manageandtesteranddevelopers in one person and you f. right. ;/ I try to change this all the time, but they won't hear me .
However you cann the roles hoepefully you umndertand the problems results from "one user has many roles" and therfore has combinations of status flows which shall be overleapable.

#3 Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang over 9 years ago

I understand your problem. But we would end up in a situation where someone with role 1 and role 2 could do things that neither role 1 nor role 2 can do. It could be misleading and not desirable.

#4 Updated by Terence Mill over 9 years ago

No, your are wrong. Its already possible, but cumbersome.
You have todo more clicks and results in more (useless) form change events (aka more history). Of course moving from a->c must respect all required fields, what mean if from a-> b is a required field then user must set this field if overleaping b to c directly. That needs a ajax rerendering of the issue form as soon as status field is changed, to make such conditions checked before save request.

#5 Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang over 9 years ago

Terence Mill wrote:

No, your are wrong. Its already possible, but cumbersome.

No, I'm not wrong. Doing a->b->c is not just doing a->c with more clicks. If no role is allowed to skip the status b in the workflow, I don't think that a combination of roles should let you do that.

#6 Updated by Terence Mill over 9 years ago

I don't mean to skip the status but instead of sending the form twice is is possible to do sveral steps in one. Tne conditions of alle steps merge together and you have the sum of all steps packed into one chnage of the form. It is already possible but need more tan oen step.
Where at the ned is the difference if you do

  1. status a>b
  2. set reqired field 1 and status b>c
  1. set required fields 1 and set status a>c

Please give an exmaple where the difference at the end result is. The restrictiosn and conditions holds in both case from my understanding.

#7 Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang over 9 years ago

Say role 1 is allowed to do a->b1 and a->b2, role 2 is allowed to do b1->c and b2->c, status b1 has a required field f1 and b2 has a required field f2. A user with role 1 + 2 would be allowed to do a->c. What happens with f1 and f2?

#8 Updated by Terence Mill over 9 years ago

Either b1 or b2 or both has to be set. Sure that only possible with JS and ajax validation.

Also available in: Atom PDF