Hi Mark,
Thanks for the reply. That clears up point 1. I will try and develop a patch
(honest :)). However, I assume the problems in my points 2 and 3 about the
archived package asset itself not showing up in the list of archived assets
in the admin section is a bug; and also the fact that you can
each asset is currently treated indivually so a package is itself an
asset like a rule is an asset. Whats needed here is an option, when
archiving packages, that asks if you would like to archive its
configured rules.
patch welcome :)
Mark
Shahad Ahmed wrote:
I've come across a few serious
I've come across a few serious usability problems whilst using the import
and archiving packages functionality in the BRMS. However, before raising a
JIRA, I thought I'd ask the community if these are expected behaviours, or
legitimate bugs.
1. Archiving a package only removes the package definiti
