It's all about the answers!

Ask a question

Setting the "Assigned to" Field to Unassigned

Barb Oxenford (231113) | asked Mar 29 '13, 10:16 a.m.
edited Mar 29 '13, 10:50 a.m. by Ralph Schoon (63.2k33646)
Has anyone implemented the "Assigned to" field becoming Unassigned when there is a State change that makes it Required? 
The example is that in one state the value is a developer and then in the next state it needs to be changed to a tester, but it is still populated, so even though the field is required, it can overlook being reset to a tester's name.  If it was cleared to Unassigned, then it would error out if attempted to be saved without being set.

2 answers

permanent link
sam detweiler (12.5k6195201) | answered Mar 29 '13, 1:07 p.m.
you cannot set a required field to unassigned, even in a participant. the save will be rejected.

there was a discussion at one point about possibly ordering the advisors and participants in such an order as to maybe enable this..  but if a participant does an explicit Save, it drives another advisor chain invocation, which will eventually reach the required field advisor who will reject the save..

Barb Oxenford commented Mar 29 '13, 1:42 p.m.

I want it to be unassigned (cleared out) when it enters the state (like a precondition) but must be valued upon save (required).  The point is to force them to choose a username each time the state is entered.  I did this easily and often in ClearQuest.

sam detweiler commented Mar 29 '13, 2:38 p.m.

Ok, so you want an field on change handler to be able force ANOTHER field to unassigned when they click to change the state... . 

I do not know if the JS handlers run AT the field click level (onchange)..

Geoffrey Clemm commented Apr 02 '13, 6:58 p.m.

It is my understanding that only the "required" and "read-only" JS handlers run at field-click level time, while all the other JS handlers (and the pre/post conditions) only run at save/commit time (and therefore are not of use to you for this functionality).   In contrast, ClearQuest does let you define arbitrary field-commit hook code, so to my knowledge, you can do this kind of customization in ClearQuest but not in RTC.

permanent link
Ralph Schoon (63.2k33646) | answered Mar 29 '13, 2:16 p.m.
As far as I can tell Sam is completely right. Despite the fact of
I agree that you can not do this, except you make the attribute not required by the standard settings and add you own advisor and use the additional parameters as in 

Ralph Schoon commented Mar 29 '13, 2:18 p.m.

And add a participant hat changes the owner.

I personally would do otherwise and spawn a new task for the quality control guy, or add an additional contributor attribute for the QM guy.

Your answer

Register or to post your answer.

Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.