Vote #66142
未完了Ability to delete an issue status that is in use
0%
説明
I'm trying to restructure the workflow of some om my Redmine projects which involves changing the issue status definitions.
However, I am unable to delete a configures issue status if there are still issues with that status (as enforced from @IssueStatus#check_integrity@). While this is good and healthy, the failure message is not very talkative ("Unable to delete issue status").
It would be great if either
the User would have the opportunity to select another status for the affected issues, or¶
the error message would state the real problem¶
journals
However, the second option does not really solve the problem, as it is not possible to bulk edit *all* issues with that status, as there could also be issues in archived projects I do not know anything about. These still let @check_integrity@ fail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1 for more useful error messages _at least_.
I've had to find this SQL (after setting config.log_level = :info):
@SELECT COUNT(*) FROM `trackers` WHERE `trackers`.`default_status_id` = 30@
so that I could find out that not only issue statuses matter, but default statuses of trackers, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In #31361 (for 4.1.0) implemented the second option.
As you say in note-1 issues in archived projects could be a problem, these issue will not shown in a search. You'll have to search through a SQL query.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo ML wrote:
> In #31361 (for 4.1.0) implemented the second option.
I have 2 problems with that implementation:
* the main one is lack of i18n;
* the other is lack of details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------