View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0011531 | mantisbt | custom fields | public | 2010-02-22 07:37 | 2011-08-05 02:31 |
Reporter | amoulton | Assigned To | atrol | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
Status | closed | Resolution | duplicate | ||
Platform | Unix | OS | Solaris | OS Version | 10 |
Product Version | 1.1.8 | ||||
Summary | 0011531: custom field value is lost on update | ||||
Description | I have a project with a custom field that has three possible values. When an issue is updated it loses the custom field value. After some testing this is specifically When a new issue has been reported and the dafault value is selected (i.e. not left to get set to the value by default). When you then update the issue the custom field value is not highlighted and will then get lost if not highlighted by the updater. | ||||
Steps To Reproduce | On a project with a custom field that has several possible values:
| ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
The above is wrong. After further investigation it seems that is the use of an ampersand chartacter in the list field that is causing this problem. Is that invalid character to use or dis this still class as a bug? |
|
Still a bug. I fixed this sometime ago with a private patch. I'll add it here for the mantisbt 1.2.3 branch I believe there was an issue like this 2 years ago aswell allthough i can't remember the issue number |
|
SL-Gundam , confusing to me, or maybe blind at the moment. 1.2.3 : contains $t_custom_field_value = string_attribute( $t_custom_field_value ); 1.2.x : removed call of string_attribute , see 0003767 and http://git.mantisbt.org/?p=mantisbt.git;a=commitdiff;h=76c9a79ef7d88a135e226088c167e90065ef9277 Your Patch: adds the call of string_attribute but you write it's for 1.2.3 |
|
Thanks atrol, I think you're right in saying this was fixed with the changesets attached to 0003767. |
|
Now I am even more confused SL-Gundam adds one line to fix this issue 0011531 Is this the game of patch ping pong? Or just that simple, that some more changes together in 1.2.x will solve 0011531 and 0003767 . |
|
My patch was meant for the 1.2.x branch. But i think 0003767 is a better solution for the same problem. So please ignore my patch |
|
Thanks for the feedback |
|