Skip to content

Observation/FOUR-13977: All options are shown in Custom select in the process column in task #6155

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

agustinbusso
Copy link
Contributor

@agustinbusso agustinbusso commented Feb 5, 2024

Issue & Reproduction Steps

  • Go to tasks
  • Click on filter button
  • Click on the arrows in the filter column

Current Behavior:
All process names are displayed, the field it occupies is too much.

Expected Behavior:
As in requests or other columns such as case title, a "Type Value" should be displayed

Solution

  • Use a single input instead select list for process name in tasks and use the alias process_request.name for the search

Working video

Grabacion.de.pantalla.2024-02-05.a.la.s.16.33.23.mov

How to Test

  • Follow steps above

Related Tickets & Packages

Code Review Checklist

  • I have pulled this code locally and tested it on my instance, along with any associated packages.
  • This code adheres to ProcessMaker Coding Guidelines.
  • This code includes a unit test or an E2E test that tests its functionality, or is covered by an existing test.
  • This solution fixes the bug reported in the original ticket.
  • This solution does not alter the expected output of a component in a way that would break existing Processes.
  • This solution does not implement any breaking changes that would invalidate documentation or cause existing Processes to fail.
  • This solution has been tested with enterprise packages that rely on its functionality and does not introduce bugs in those packages.
  • This code does not duplicate functionality that already exists in the framework or in ProcessMaker.
  • This ticket conforms to the PRD associated with this part of ProcessMaker.

@agustinbusso agustinbusso requested a review from gproly February 6, 2024 13:02
Copy link

Copy link
Contributor

@gproly gproly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

approved

@nolanpro nolanpro self-requested a review February 6, 2024 22:02
@nolanpro
Copy link
Contributor

nolanpro commented Feb 6, 2024

Closing in favor of #6152

@nolanpro nolanpro closed this Feb 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants