N°3441 - Portal: Fix failure to open an object containing a link to an archived object

[larhip]

Portal : cannot open an object containing a link to an archived object

[Molkobain]

Moving to functional review as it will be this afternoon and we might have to discuss expected behavior.

[Molkobain]

Functional review:

• Ok to avoid crashes and display the information in read-only instead
• We would go furthermore with the display and be similar to what is done in the back office with the "archive" icon prefixed (see screenshot below)

Thanks for the PR Lars!

[larhip]

Thanks @Molkobain for your feedback.

Display an archive icon in the portal as well is done now.

It might be checked during technical review, wehster there is some smarter way to do so.
I was also thinking about using the method DBObject::GetHyperlink to do it in a similar way like the back office. So something like this:

if ($this->oField->GetCurrentValue() !== null && $this->oField->GetCurrentValue() !== 0 && $this->oField->GetCurrentValue() !== '')
{
	// Note : AllowAllData set to true here instead of checking scope's flag because we are displaying a value that has been set and validated
	$oFieldValue = MetaModel::GetObjectWithArchive($sFieldValueClass, $this->oField->GetCurrentValue(), true, true);
	$sFieldHtmlValue = $oFieldValue->GetHyperlink();
}
else
{
	$sFieldHtmlValue = Dict::S('UI:UndefinedObject');
}

But in this case the archived icon will be displayed as well and the attribute data-toggle="itop-portal-modal" is missing..

[Molkobain]

Indeed, methods in \DBObject or \AttributeDefinition are backoffice-oriented, so we can't rely on them for now. What you did goes in the right direction, I'll take a closer look during the review :)

[Molkobain]

Accepted during functional for 3.1.1 as it can be blocking for people archiving objects.

[Molkobain]

Hello Lars,

Could you rebase your branch on support/3.1 so we can merge it?
If you are not comfortable doing so, feel free to ask. :)

[larhip]

Hi Guillaume,

should be done now, could you please check again?

[Molkobain]

I'm sorry Lars but I still can't apply suggestions :/

Could you apply the 2 I just made, I didn't noticed them earlier but you changed the usages to the deprecated API.
You should be able to apply the suggestion directly from GitHub GUI.

Then I'll be able to merge, the rebase was done correctly 👍

[larhip]

Hi Guillaume,

I have just committed your suggestions, so you should be able to merge now.
BTW: When I got it correctly it is not able to set the option "editable by maintainers" if the fork belong to an organization.
Which means it should be possible to set the option for an PR is created from larhip/iTop but not from itomig-de/iTop.
Maybe I could do a quick test today :-)

[Hipska]

BTW: When I got it correctly it is not able to set the option "editable by maintainers" if the fork belong to an organization. Which means it should be possible to set the option for an PR is created from larhip/iTop but not from itomig-de/iTop.

Ooh, this is interesting.. The same problem I'm running into.

[Molkobain]

BTW: When I got it correctly it is not able to set the option "editable by maintainers" if the fork belong to an organization. Which means it should be possible to set the option for an PR is created from larhip/iTop but not from itomig-de/iTop.

Ooh, this is interesting.. The same problem I'm running into.

Indeed, it's a shame though 😁

[Molkobain]

Hi Guillaume,

I have just committed your suggestions, so you should be able to merge now. [...]

Perfect thanks, merge incoming!

[larhip]

Just tested it, it is for real related to the owner of the fork (organization vs. personal):

Personal fork:

Organization fork:

[Molkobain]

Thanks for the feedback Lars! @piRGoif you might interested by this.

[Hipska]

hmm, could be worked around that?

[piRGoif]

Wooo ! Many thanks Larhip ! I didn't saw this in the documentation :(
I already saw issues opened for GitHub bugs/enhancement, maybe we could open one ?

[Hipska]

Please do and let us know the reference..

[piRGoif]

Well, the issue already exists : https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/5634
I've just added a comment. Feel free to add yours, and vote !