Skip to main content
J
JensN.1-Visitor
1-Visitor
August 8, 2014
Solved

[IM] "creating related item" is copying fields, but shouldn't...

  • August 8, 2014
  • 1 reply
  • 2327 views

Hi @all,

we have an item-type CR (Changerequest). This CR can have a child-item MR (Module-Request). The user should create this MR via click at the little button with the chain-symbol in the relationship-field ("create a related item and add it to the field"). CR and MR are different item-types, but they are using some fields together.

So if the user do the above described action, the MR will be created and added to this relationship-field. So far so good. While integrity creates this new item, it copies all field-values from the fields which are the same in both items. But we dont want this. And we didnt find a way to prevent this. It seems that the settings in "copy fields" for this item will be ignored by Integrity for this usecase. Did i miss something?

kind regards, Jens

    Best answer by mrump

    Hi Jens,

    there seems to be a difference between the "copy item" and "create related item" function.

    When using "copy item", the "copy fields" (that can be defined per Type) are used to limit the amount of copied field values.

    When using "create related item" (at least in your setup) there is always the checkbox to "copy common fields" in the upcoming dialog.

    This seems to do exactly what it says: It's an all or nothing option to either copy nothing at all (unchecked) or to copy all common fields, independent of the type setup (checked).

    To some extend this behavior makes sense, but I understand you problem

    We have a comparable usecase and solved it using a pre-trigger that simple removes all field values on the newly created item we do not want to be copied (e.g. a comment field).

    Unfortunately this does only work after the user "reviewed "the new item and clicked apply (which fires the trigger event).

    The users may be confused to see some fields value that are not actually stored afterwards.

    Thinking of it, there might be a solution to this using constraints based on the "unspecified" state....

    HTH Matthias

    1 reply

    M
    mrump16-PearlAnswer
    16-Pearl
    August 8, 2014

    Hi Jens,

    there seems to be a difference between the "copy item" and "create related item" function.

    When using "copy item", the "copy fields" (that can be defined per Type) are used to limit the amount of copied field values.

    When using "create related item" (at least in your setup) there is always the checkbox to "copy common fields" in the upcoming dialog.

    This seems to do exactly what it says: It's an all or nothing option to either copy nothing at all (unchecked) or to copy all common fields, independent of the type setup (checked).

    To some extend this behavior makes sense, but I understand you problem

    We have a comparable usecase and solved it using a pre-trigger that simple removes all field values on the newly created item we do not want to be copied (e.g. a comment field).

    Unfortunately this does only work after the user "reviewed "the new item and clicked apply (which fires the trigger event).

    The users may be confused to see some fields value that are not actually stored afterwards.

    Thinking of it, there might be a solution to this using constraints based on the "unspecified" state....

    HTH Matthias

    J
    JensN.1-VisitorAuthor
    1-Visitor
    August 8, 2014

    Hi Matthias,

    again you saved my day, and this time the solution is that simple: i really missed the option "copy common fields". I really didnt recognize it

    That any trigger just can work after the apply-button is clicked, is a problem to us too. We spoke to our PTC-consultants (and opened a RfC for this) that we want to have some more direct reactions by the system (i.e when a field is changed that another field gets a new value or such things), but there is not much hope that such a RfC will ever be fulfilled...

    Thanks, Jens

    M
    mrump16-Pearl
    16-Pearl
    August 8, 2014

    Hi Jens,

    actually what you discribe is possible with contraints.

    What version of Integrity are you using?

      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement