Defect #19059: Wrong number of issues for a version in the roadmap - Redmine

Actions

Copy link

Defect #19059

closed

Wrong number of issues for a version in the roadmap

Added by Filou Centrinov almost 10 years ago. Updated over 6 years ago.

Status:

Closed

Priority:

Normal

Assignee:

Category:

Roadmap

Target version:

Start date:

Due date:

% Done:

Estimated time:

Resolution:

Duplicate

Affected version:

2.6.1

Description

Using a version for an open project that contains also archived subprojects cause problems with the shown number of issues for that version.

Issues from archived subprojects are also counted in the roadmap version but this is very confusing because they are not listed. The roadmap should only count issues from open projects.

Files

roadmap_invisible_issues.png (26.2 KB) roadmap_invisible_issues.png

version contains two issues but only one is shown

Filou Centrinov, 2015-02-08 17:43

Related issues

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Filou Centrinov almost 10 years ago

Description updated (diff)

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Sebastian Paluch almost 10 years ago

This is not the only case when you can see mismatch.

The number shown will not match listed issues also when subprojects are open and using different trackers. In such case, available trackers for select in sidebar comes from the project only, not subprojects. When subproject is using a tracker that the projects is not using, it will not be listed in sidebar, so can't be selected and you will see less issues on the list then indicated by counters.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Toshi MARUYAMA over 9 years ago

Related to Defect #19187: Roadmap links in subproject added

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Shai Gilboa about 9 years ago

Hi,
We also have the same issue with wrong numbers in roadmap counters, using 2.6.1.

Was this ever fixed in newer Redmine versions?
Thanks

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Kevin Palm almost 8 years ago

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Marius BĂLTEANU about 7 years ago

This issue was fixed by r17051.

I don't think that a test is required also for this scenario, it is covered by the test from #19187 and I propose to close this ticket with resolution "Duplicate".

Actions

Copy link