-
Bug
-
Resolution: Won't Fix
-
Low
-
9
-
Severity 3 - Minor
-
3
-
Issue Summary
This is reproducible on Data Center: N/A
Unable to leave the non-required attributes value blank for existing objects with minimum cardinality set to "0" in the new Assets UI if any other attribute has the minimum cardinality set to "1" in the object type. This issue is not faced for the newly created objects in the object type.
Steps to Reproduce
- Have an object created with some attributes. For this test, 3 of them ('one', 'two' 'three'), text.
- Have the 'one' attribute empty, and fill 'two' and 'three' with some value.
- Update the object type and set 'one' as required (cardinality minimum value is set to 1).
- Try to update the object that was previously created. Remove the values of 'two' and 'three'.
- The UI will show a warning 'At least one value must be set' for attributes 'two' and 'three'.
Expected Results
Just the 'one' (required) attribute should show that message.
Actual Results
The non-required attributes will appear as if they were required. This can cause a lot of confusion.
Workaround
The workaround would be to update the required attribute (one) first, then the others. This way the bug will not trigger.
Or, you can identify the attributes in the object type with minimum cardinality set to "1" and update the minimum cardinality to "0".
- is duplicated by
-
-
- Closed
-
- is action for
-
FLY-1184 Failed to load
[JSDCLOUD-12711] Updating non-required attribute on an Assets object shows 'At least one value must be set' on the UI
Hi everyone,
This is Isabel from the JSM Cloud team. Thank you for raising this bug to our attention, and my team and I appreciate the details provided to help us reproduce the bug. Although we're aware of that it is still important to those of you who were involved in the conversations around it, we want to be transparent that we won’t fix the bug given the impact level of this bug and the workaround exists.
We will update this thread if there are changes to our roadmap to accommodate this bug. Thank you again for providing valuable feedback to our team!
Thank you,
Isabel
All comments
Any chance this could see a hotfix? It is really tricky to troubleshoot when you are unaware that this bug exists...attribute cardinality needs to be treated individually per attribute and not somehow "invisibly linked" to other fields...
Pinned by
Alim A.
Hi everyone,
This is Isabel from the JSM Cloud team. Thank you for raising this bug to our attention, and my team and I appreciate the details provided to help us reproduce the bug. Although we're aware of that it is still important to those of you who were involved in the conversations around it, we want to be transparent that we won’t fix the bug given the impact level of this bug and the workaround exists.
We will update this thread if there are changes to our roadmap to accommodate this bug. Thank you again for providing valuable feedback to our team!
Thank you,
Isabel