Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field Privileges
On 07/10/2013 06:42 PM, Thomas Sibley wrote: * What's unexpected is if a user has SeeCustomField, but not ModifyCustomField on a mandatory CF, at ticket creation they get the error "MyCustomField: Input must match [Mandatory]" even though it's not displayed & they don't have modify rights on it. Shouldn't RT create the ticket just as it does for a user without SeeCustomField, leaving the mandatory CF unset? This is totally a bug. I just replicated it on 4.0-trunk. After digging, I discovered that I fixed it on git master, which will become RT 4.2. An equivalent fix should be backported to the 4.0 version of the CF validation. I'm Cc'ing this to our bug tracker. Thank you for your help Thomas. I look forward to getting the fix into our own instance.
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field Privileges
On 07/10/2013 02:33 PM, Tim Wiley wrote: > I'm setting the validation field in the Basic CF config to "(?#Mandatory)." Ok, good. > * What's unexpected is if a user has SeeCustomField, but not > ModifyCustomField on a mandatory CF, at ticket creation they get the > error "MyCustomField: Input must match [Mandatory]" even though it's not > displayed & they don't have modify rights on it. Shouldn't RT create > the ticket just as it does for a user without SeeCustomField, leaving > the mandatory CF unset? This is totally a bug. I just replicated it on 4.0-trunk. After digging, I discovered that I fixed it on git master, which will become RT 4.2. An equivalent fix should be backported to the 4.0 version of the CF validation. I'm Cc'ing this to our bug tracker.
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field Privileges
On 07/10/2013 01:51 PM, Thomas Sibley wrote:
On 07/09/2013 05:08 PM, Tim Wiley wrote:
Not letting one group of users see a set of CFs is possible with RT's
rights, provided you haven't granted rights too widely at the global
level. You may need to rejigger some of your rights first to be less
global and more role/group/object specific.
I think that might've been the key. I removed some more wide spread
permissions on one of my mandatory fields & the error is gone. Let me
play around with the others & I'll get back to you.
Which error is gone?
When trying to submit a ticket as a user that had SeeCustomField, but
not MidifyCustomField, It would give me the error that the CF "Input
must match [Mandatory]", even though I couldn't see the field to set it
& I don't have permissions to set it anyway. Removing SeeCustomField
from Everyone on the CF allowed me to create a ticket without error.
How are you making the CFs mandatory, btw? If it's an extension, that
may affect whether or not it's caring to check rights before verifying
mandatory-ness.
I'm setting the validation field in the Basic CF config to "(?#Mandatory)."
The blanket permission was SeeCustomField granted to everyone on the CF
level. I'm guessing that there's no good way to allow a user to see the
field, but not modify it? Am I misunderstanding what SeeCustomField
allows?
It's possible, I was mistaken on SeeQueue a while back.
The See* rights are just visibility, not modification.
ModifyCustomField controls adding/removing values from CFs on tickets, etc.
After testing different scenarios, it looks like
SeeCustomField/ModifyCustomField works as I would expect in every
instance except for ticket creation. I may have stumbled across a bug.
* As expected, a user having neither SeeCustomField nor
ModifyCustomField will not see the custom field when the ticket is
displayed or when they modify ticket basics.
* As expected, a user with SeeCustomField, but not ModifyCustomField
will see the CF & it's value when the ticket is displayed, but will not
see the form element to set it when editing ticket basics.
* As expected, a user with SeeCustomField, but not ModifyCustomField
will not see the input form element for a field on the ticket creation
input page.
* What's unexpected is if a user has SeeCustomField, but not
ModifyCustomField on a mandatory CF, at ticket creation they get the
error "MyCustomField: Input must match [Mandatory]" even though it's not
displayed & they don't have modify rights on it. Shouldn't RT create
the ticket just as it does for a user without SeeCustomField, leaving
the mandatory CF unset?
BTW, I never said, but this is all rt-4.0.13, although it hasn't worked
the way I'd expect on any version I've used (rt-3.6.3,
rt-4.0.{8,9,10,11,12,13})
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field Privileges
On 07/09/2013 05:08 PM, Tim Wiley wrote: >> Not letting one group of users see a set of CFs is possible with RT's >> rights, provided you haven't granted rights too widely at the global >> level. You may need to rejigger some of your rights first to be less >> global and more role/group/object specific. >> > > I think that might've been the key. I removed some more wide spread > permissions on one of my mandatory fields & the error is gone. Let me > play around with the others & I'll get back to you. Which error is gone? How are you making the CFs mandatory, btw? If it's an extension, that may affect whether or not it's caring to check rights before verifying mandatory-ness. > The blanket permission was SeeCustomField granted to everyone on the CF > level. I'm guessing that there's no good way to allow a user to see the > field, but not modify it? Am I misunderstanding what SeeCustomField > allows? > > It's possible, I was mistaken on SeeQueue a while back. The See* rights are just visibility, not modification. ModifyCustomField controls adding/removing values from CFs on tickets, etc.
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field Privileges
On 07/09/2013 04:43 PM, Thomas Sibley wrote: On 07/09/2013 02:20 PM, Tim Wiley wrote: GroupA are workers in & effectively own Queue1. GroupA requested a number of custom fields for their queue that help facilitate better reporting on tickets. Because of the reporting nature of these custom fields, GroupA has requested that only they have the permissions required to set the values on these fields & that they are mandatory. Furthermore, these custom fields should be hidden from GroupB, the group that is allowed to submit tickets to the queue. Ideally, if GroupB can't see or modify the custom field, they shouldn't be told at ticket creation that the CFs are mandatory & the ticket should be created. Once a ticket lands in the hands of GroupA & they modify the ticket, the mandatory CFs with no values should then be verified & an error should be displayed, not allowing the modify until all mandatory CFs are filled out (because GroupA has permissions to see & modify the custom fields). I've looked all over for the special permissions recipe for this setup & I can't find anything. Am I the only one trying to use RT in this manner? Is there a way to do this that I'm missing? Do you need more information or clarification? I'll gladly supply it. You never said what you tried and what isn't working... Not letting one group of users see a set of CFs is possible with RT's rights, provided you haven't granted rights too widely at the global level. You may need to rejigger some of your rights first to be less global and more role/group/object specific. I think that might've been the key. I removed some more wide spread permissions on one of my mandatory fields & the error is gone. Let me play around with the others & I'll get back to you. The blanket permission was SeeCustomField granted to everyone on the CF level. I'm guessing that there's no good way to allow a user to see the field, but not modify it? Am I misunderstanding what SeeCustomField allows? It's possible, I was mistaken on SeeQueue a while back.
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field Privileges
On 07/09/2013 02:20 PM, Tim Wiley wrote: > GroupA are workers in & effectively own Queue1. GroupA requested a > number of custom fields for their queue that help facilitate better > reporting on tickets. Because of the reporting nature of these custom > fields, GroupA has requested that only they have the permissions > required to set the values on these fields & that they are mandatory. > Furthermore, these custom fields should be hidden from GroupB, the group > that is allowed to submit tickets to the queue. Ideally, if GroupB > can't see or modify the custom field, they shouldn't be told at ticket > creation that the CFs are mandatory & the ticket should be created. Once > a ticket lands in the hands of GroupA & they modify the ticket, the > mandatory CFs with no values should then be verified & an error should > be displayed, not allowing the modify until all mandatory CFs are filled > out (because GroupA has permissions to see & modify the custom fields). > > I've looked all over for the special permissions recipe for this setup & > I can't find anything. Am I the only one trying to use RT in this > manner? Is there a way to do this that I'm missing? Do you need more > information or clarification? I'll gladly supply it. You never said what you tried and what isn't working... Not letting one group of users see a set of CFs is possible with RT's rights, provided you haven't granted rights too widely at the global level. You may need to rejigger some of your rights first to be less global and more role/group/object specific.
Re: [rt-users] mandatory custom field
Alexandre, Your question is odd. Are you saying you HAVE the CF's or WANT to have some CF's? Also, if a CF is defined as "Mandatory", that is indicated when creating/updating a ticket. This is explained in the RT Essentials book. Kenn LBNL On 11/13/2009 7:40 AM, Alexandre PIASER wrote: > Hello > > I have some custom fields (mandatory and optional). > I would differentiate between mandatory and optional fields. I would add > a mark or something else near mandatory fields. > Is it possible ? > > Thanks, > > ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] mandatory custom field
> I have some custom fields (mandatory and optional). > I would differentiate between mandatory and optional fields. I would add > a mark or something else near mandatory fields. > Is it possible ? Doesn't the system already do this in the italics below the field name? If not, make a local version of Ticket/Elements/EditCustomFields and add your note inside the of -- Cambridge Energy Alliance: Save money. Save the planet. ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: sa...@bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory custom field
Will be fixed in 3.8.2 and 3.6.8 - patches are in the repo. On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Monti gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I added a new custom field named "Severiy" with Type "Select one value" and > Validatione = Mandatory. > I want SelfService ticktes to be filled with the mandatory new custom filed > but it is not the case. > New ticket could be open without providing a value for my new custom field. > > is there a way to force mandatory filed in ticket creation? > > thanks, > > Motti. > ___ > http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users > > Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com > Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. > Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com > -- Best regards, Ruslan. ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory custom field
Hi Scott, I've tried that but still, when I open a new ticket from SelfService although the CF is mandatory, I can submit without valuse to the CF. On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:57 PM, scott smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Monti gmail wrote: > >> Hi, >> I added a new custom field named "Severiy" with Type "Select one value" >> and Validatione = Mandatory. >> I want SelfService ticktes to be filled with the mandatory new custom >> filed but it is not the case. >> New ticket could be open without providing a value for my new custom >> field. >> is there a way to force mandatory filed in ticket creation? >> > > You have to give "AssignCustomFields" perms to the group for the queue(s) > in which they create tickets. That should do it. > > -scott > ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory custom field
Monti gmail wrote: > Hi, > > I added a new custom field named "Severiy" with Type "Select one value" > and Validatione = Mandatory. > I want SelfService ticktes to be filled with the mandatory new custom > filed but it is not the case. > New ticket could be open without providing a value for my new custom field. > > is there a way to force mandatory filed in ticket creation? You have to give "AssignCustomFields" perms to the group for the queue(s) in which they create tickets. That should do it. -scott ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field
Scott, Very good. I'll get it. Kenn LBNL On 3/11/2008 10:39 AM, Scott Lambert wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 09:05:09AM -0700, Kenneth Crocker wrote: >> Stephen & Steve, >> >> Thanks a bunch, really. I'm just now learning some perl, so a lot of >> stuff confuses me. I think I see it, so double thanks. You helped me fix >> a problem AND taught me something. > > This provides a useful head start into regular expressions: > > http://www.matthewgifford.com/a-tao-of-regular-expressions/ > > If you are going to go deep into regex, with or without perl, pick up > "Mastering Regular Expressions", by Jeffrey Fried. > > http://regex.info/ > > Regular Expressions have been useful for soo many things, once I > understood them. The better I understand them, the more useful they > become. Mr. Fried's book, in it's first revision at least, was very > easy to read. > ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 09:05:09AM -0700, Kenneth Crocker wrote: > Stephen & Steve, > > Thanks a bunch, really. I'm just now learning some perl, so a lot of > stuff confuses me. I think I see it, so double thanks. You helped me fix > a problem AND taught me something. This provides a useful head start into regular expressions: http://www.matthewgifford.com/a-tao-of-regular-expressions/ If you are going to go deep into regex, with or without perl, pick up "Mastering Regular Expressions", by Jeffrey Fried. http://regex.info/ Regular Expressions have been useful for soo many things, once I understood them. The better I understand them, the more useful they become. Mr. Fried's book, in it's first revision at least, was very easy to read. -- Scott LambertKC5MLE Unix SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field
Stephen & Steve,
Thanks a bunch, really. I'm just now learning some perl, so a lot of
stuff confuses me. I think I see it, so double thanks. You helped me fix
a problem AND taught me something.
Kenn
LBNL
On 3/11/2008 6:19 AM, Stephen Turner wrote:
> At Monday 3/10/2008 05:10 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>>
>> Why does yours have so much code? I just tried adding the '?'
>> at the end, in front of the '$' and it still doesn't work. Where would
>> I make a change to yours in order to get 4 positions for year?
>>
>> Kenn
>> LBNL
>
> Kenn,
>
> Our version does more checking on entered values that yours- the one you
> posted would allow something like 66/43/76 as a valid date. Looking at
> ours a bit more closely, it may actually allow a 4-digit year, although
> it also allows a 2-digit year. The year specification is the last part -
> ([12][0-9])?[0-9][0-9] - I'm not a regexpert, but I'd guess that
> removing the ? from the middle of that piece would enforce a 4-digit
> year. The parentheses in that part are also probably not needed if you
> remove the ?.
>
> If you want to extend your version to make it optional, try using
> parentheses:
>
> (?#Date)^(\d{2}/\d{2}/\d{4})?$
>
> Steve
>
>
>> On 3/10/2008 11:06 AM, Stephen Turner wrote:
>>> At Monday 3/10/2008 12:31 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
To all,
We have a Custom Field called "Need-By Date". It is applied
to only a
few Queues. In order to ensure the format entered is consistent, I put
the following "(?#Date)^\d{2}/\d{2}/\d{4}$" into the Validation field.
The result is RT demands an entry as though it is a Mandatory Field. I
only wanted the format to be mandatory so that IF it was entered, it
would require the desired format. Any ideas on how to accomplish this?
Thanks ahead of time.
Kenn
LBNL
>>> Kenn,
>>> Here's what we have for an optional date field (MM/DD/YY format):
>>> '(?#Date-Optional
>>> MM/DD/YY)^(((0)?[1-9]|1[0-2])\/((0)?[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])\/([12][0-9])?[0-9][0-9])?$',
>>>
>>>
>>> It's the final '?' that makes this optional - without it, the field
>>> is mandatory.
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> Stephen Turner
>>> Senior Programmer/Analyst - SAIS
>>> MIT Information Services and Technology (IS&T)
>>>
>>
>
> Stephen Turner
> Senior Programmer/Analyst - SAIS
> MIT Information Services and Technology (IS&T)
>
>
>
___
http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field
At Monday 3/10/2008 05:10 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
>Stephen,
>
>
> Why does yours have so much code? I just tried adding the
> '?' at the end, in front of the '$' and it still doesn't work.
> Where would I make a change to yours in order to get 4 positions for year?
>
>Kenn
>LBNL
Kenn,
Our version does more checking on entered values that yours- the one
you posted would allow something like 66/43/76 as a valid date.
Looking at ours a bit more closely, it may actually allow a 4-digit
year, although it also allows a 2-digit year. The year specification
is the last part - ([12][0-9])?[0-9][0-9] - I'm not a regexpert, but
I'd guess that removing the ? from the middle of that piece would
enforce a 4-digit year. The parentheses in that part are also
probably not needed if you remove the ?.
If you want to extend your version to make it optional, try using parentheses:
(?#Date)^(\d{2}/\d{2}/\d{4})?$
Steve
>On 3/10/2008 11:06 AM, Stephen Turner wrote:
>>At Monday 3/10/2008 12:31 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
>>>To all,
>>>
>>>
>>> We have a Custom Field called "Need-By Date". It is
>>> applied to only a
>>>few Queues. In order to ensure the format entered is consistent, I put
>>>the following "(?#Date)^\d{2}/\d{2}/\d{4}$" into the Validation field.
>>>The result is RT demands an entry as though it is a Mandatory Field. I
>>>only wanted the format to be mandatory so that IF it was entered, it
>>>would require the desired format. Any ideas on how to accomplish this?
>>>Thanks ahead of time.
>>>
>>>Kenn
>>>LBNL
>>Kenn,
>>Here's what we have for an optional date field (MM/DD/YY format):
>>'(?#Date-Optional
>>MM/DD/YY)^(((0)?[1-9]|1[0-2])\/((0)?[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])\/([12][0-9])?[0-9][0-9])?$',
>>
>>
>>It's the final '?' that makes this optional - without it, the field
>>is mandatory.
>>Steve
>>
>>Stephen Turner
>>Senior Programmer/Analyst - SAIS
>>MIT Information Services and Technology (IS&T)
>>
>
Stephen Turner
Senior Programmer/Analyst - SAIS
MIT Information Services and Technology (IS&T)
___
http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field
Stephen,
Why does yours have so much code? I just tried adding the '?' at the
end, in front of the '$' and it still doesn't work. Where would I make a
change to yours in order to get 4 positions for year?
Kenn
LBNL
On 3/10/2008 11:06 AM, Stephen Turner wrote:
> At Monday 3/10/2008 12:31 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
>> To all,
>>
>>
>> We have a Custom Field called "Need-By Date". It is applied to
>> only a
>> few Queues. In order to ensure the format entered is consistent, I put
>> the following "(?#Date)^\d{2}/\d{2}/\d{4}$" into the Validation field.
>> The result is RT demands an entry as though it is a Mandatory Field. I
>> only wanted the format to be mandatory so that IF it was entered, it
>> would require the desired format. Any ideas on how to accomplish this?
>> Thanks ahead of time.
>>
>> Kenn
>> LBNL
>
> Kenn,
>
> Here's what we have for an optional date field (MM/DD/YY format):
>
> '(?#Date-Optional
> MM/DD/YY)^(((0)?[1-9]|1[0-2])\/((0)?[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])\/([12][0-9])?[0-9][0-9])?$',
>
>
>
> It's the final '?' that makes this optional - without it, the field is
> mandatory.
>
> Steve
>
>
> Stephen Turner
> Senior Programmer/Analyst - SAIS
> MIT Information Services and Technology (IS&T)
>
>
>
___
http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] Mandatory Custom Field
At Monday 3/10/2008 12:31 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
>To all,
>
>
> We have a Custom Field called "Need-By Date". It is applied
> to only a
>few Queues. In order to ensure the format entered is consistent, I put
>the following "(?#Date)^\d{2}/\d{2}/\d{4}$" into the Validation field.
>The result is RT demands an entry as though it is a Mandatory Field. I
>only wanted the format to be mandatory so that IF it was entered, it
>would require the desired format. Any ideas on how to accomplish this?
>Thanks ahead of time.
>
>Kenn
>LBNL
Kenn,
Here's what we have for an optional date field (MM/DD/YY format):
'(?#Date-Optional
MM/DD/YY)^(((0)?[1-9]|1[0-2])\/((0)?[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])\/([12][0-9])?[0-9][0-9])?$',
It's the final '?' that makes this optional - without it, the field
is mandatory.
Steve
Stephen Turner
Senior Programmer/Analyst - SAIS
MIT Information Services and Technology (IS&T)
___
http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
