On 25. Mar, 2013, at 16:13, Joachim Dreimann wrote: > On 25 March 2013 12:40, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 25.03.2013 12:46, Joachim Dreimann wrote: >>> On 23 March 2013 14:19, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I just noticed this ticket: >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/16 >>>> >>>> Its status was "assigned" but it had no owner, as Joe removed himself a >>>> while ago. Just now I modified it and selected "unassign", and its >>>> status is now "new", however, it still has no owner, even though I'd >>>> expect the owner to be "nobody". >>>> >>>> Both states seem inconsistent to me. Is this lack of proper attribute >>>> dependency tracking an inherent bug in Trac, or did we introduce it >>>> somehow, perhaps with the UI changes? >>>> >>> I can replicate something very similar using Edgewall's Trac 1.0 demo, >> see >>> this ticket I created today: >>> http://trac.edgewall.org/demo-1.0/ticket/1606 >>> >>> "nobody" is treated like any other user in Trac, someone has to type the >>> name into the Owner field. An empty string or <null> are not equal to >>> "nobody" because it has no meaning, and like you say there is >>> no dependency tracking. >> >> Right. So the question is, do we add such dependency tracking on our >> todo list (post-1.0 of course)? I think it would make sense to do that. >> By implication, "nobody" would be treated specially; on the other hand, >> it seems that a null owner would be more appropriate, as long as one >> can't have a ticket assigned to null. > > > I agree that using null is the right approach.
On another note, Trac seems to allow assigning tickets to non-existant users, without any warning. Should we at least warn the users of a potential mistake, or perhaps even prevent it (though this might be a bit extreme)? > > -- > Joe Dreimann | *User Experience Designer* | WANdisco<http://www.wandisco.com/> > > @jdreimann <https://twitter.com/jdreimann> -- matevz
