Re: [rt-users] Unable to bulk update Assets

[Matt Zagrabelny]

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Shawn M Moore  wrote:

> We have a fix for this in the upcoming releases of RT; in the meantime you
> can apply the patch to your RT instance:

Shawn,

Any rough estimate on 4.4.2?

Thanks!

-m

Re: [rt-users] Unable to bulk update Assets

[Shawn M Moore]

Hi Chris,

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 15:28, Chris McClement  wrote:
> 
> I'm unable to apply any bulk updates to custom fields in my Asset database. 
> For example, I have a Custom Field called "Asset Category". I have configured 
> the CF to be filled from a dropdown list ("Select one value") and defined a 
> range of categories to select from. Applying a bulk update to assets where 
> I've selected, for example, setting the CF to "PC" (or any of the other 
> options I've defined) fails with the following message displayed in the web 
> browser:
> 
> An internal RT error has occurred. Your administrator can find more details 
> in RT's log files.
> 
> I've had a look in my syslog, and every time I attempt this bulk update, the 
> following two entries appear:
> 
> Feb  9 09:17:06 rt RT: [11319] Use of uninitialized value $1 in hash element 
> at /opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Interface/Web.pm line 3164.
> Feb  9 09:17:06 rt RT: [11319] Can't call method "new" without a package or 
> object reference at /opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Interface/Web.pm line 
> 3099.#012#012Stack:#012  [/opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Interface/Web.pm:3099]#012  
> [/opt/rt4/share/html/Asset/Search/Bulk.html:183]#012  
> [/opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Interface/Web.pm:696]#012  
> [/opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Interface/Web.pm:375]#012  
> [/opt/rt4/share/html/autohandler:53]
> 
> Does anyone have an ideas what might be causing this?

We have a fix for this in the upcoming releases of RT; in the meantime you can 
apply the patch to your RT instance:

https://github.com/bestpractical/rt/commit/0cf934de1da1cea2433c9da3946357bda9c16c7f.patch
 


> For completeness, applying a bulk update to one of the core fields (e.g. 
> "Owner") works fine.

Yes, the bug affects only custom fields.

Best,
Shawn