I am using a jira mail handler to automatically create tickets whenever email comes to a particular mail id. However many of the users who are sending mails are part of jira users and jira will create the issue with creator as their name. Later looking at the tickets is there any way to identify whether the ticket was created from email or the user manually created it. Thanks in advance
I think, it is not possible automatically. What about using a extra customfield? this way you can fill that new field, with the value you want: one for manually opened tickets, and another for email opened tickets. You can show or hide this field, and this would allow you to look for manually opened using jql (even it is not your first need :) )
For making it more visual, then you can use a bit of proggramatic magic and represent the values with icons or wahtever.
Let me know if it is not clear or if you need help for adding the new field or whatever.
Edit: the easiest way for doing this could be add to every issues opened by mail, at the begining of the summary something like "from mail:" and then the real summary. Anyway probably better if you customize the handler or create new one
Regards
I am looking for a simple way to get data displayed in an issue as just plain text. Basically, I want to be able to type in a lookup id in the issue creation and then once the issue is created, it would call one of our web services to retrieve data connected with that ID.
This wouldn't be coming from another issue tracker, but rather straight from one of my databases.
What would be the easiest way of accomplishing this? I would like the workflow to be: Enter id #, hit save, see the data with that ID displayed in the ticket (Doesn't need to be editable, just displayed in the ticket view).
The easiest way is to create a workflow function that is triggered at Create transition to do the job. There your code can query information from the database and replicate them into JIRA standard and custom fields of the issue itself.
Then you can prevent edition of replicated fields by tuning Edit screen for your issues.
You can also use your function to update field content from time to time, either at transition or in a trigger.
An option is to create some read-only custom fields than query each piece information from the database. It will prevent data replication but it will be probably slow and it does not apply to default fields.
There is similar question like this for ASP.net, but I wanted to know if there is a 'relatively' easy way to do this on RoR.
I have a field for "Price" where I want the user to only type in numbers. This means that when the user tries to type in anything else, my web app shouldn't let them (nothing should happen).
If this isn't possible, I guess I can just validate my data after the user has submitted the "Submit" button and then flash a message that says "'Price' must be a number."
Thank you for your time,
JHS
This requires a javascript solution (since you want the check to occur client-side) so it will depend on which javascript framework you are using. If you are using jQuery this is a nice one that will do exactly what you need: Numeric
as everyone already mentioned this requires a javascript solution. you can use the following regex to test that only numbers are given
/^[0-9]+$/
tie that to an onKeyUp event handler and you can validate the input client side
I'm developing a webapp that allows the editing of records. There is a possibility that two users could be working on the same screen at a time and I want to minimise the damage done, if they both click save.
If User1 requests the page and then makes changes to the Address, Telephone and Contact Details, but before he clicks Save, User2 requests the same page.
User1 then clicks save and the whole model is updated using TryUpdateModel(), if User2 simply appends some detail to the Notes field, when he saves, the TryUpdateModel() method will overwrite the new details User1 saved, with the old details.
I've considered storing the original values for all the model's properties in a hidden form field, and then writing a custom TryUpdateModel to only update the properties that have changed, but this feels a little too like the Viewstate we've all been more than happy to leave behind by moving to MVC.
Is there a pattern for dealing with this problem that I'm not aware of?
How would you handle it?
Update: In answer to the comments below, I'm using Entity Framework.
Anthony
Unless you have any particular requirements for what happens in this case (e.g. lock the record, which of course requires some functionality to undo the lock in the event that the user decides not to make a change) I'd suggest the normal approach is an optimistic lock:
Each update you perform should check that the record hasn't changed in the meantime.
So:
Put an integer "version" property or a guid / rowversion on the record.
Ensure this is contained in a hidden field in the html and is therefore returned with any submit;
When you perform the update, ensure that the (database) record's version/guid/rowversion still matches the value that was in the hidden field [and add 1 to the "version" integer when you do the update if you've decided to go with that manual approach.]
A similar approach is obviously to use a date/time stamp on the record, but don't do that because, to within the accuracy of your system clock, it's flawed.
[I suggest you'll find fuller explanations of the whole approach elsewhere. Certainly if you were to google for information on NHibernate's Version functionality...]
Locking modification of a page while one user is working on it is an option. This is done in some wiki software like dokuwiki. In that case it will usually use some javascript to free the lock after 5-10 minutes of inactivity so others can update it.
Another option might be storing all revisions in a database so when two users submit, both copies are saved and still exist. From there on, all you'd need to do is merge the two.
You usually don't handle this. If two users happen to edit a document at the same time and commit their updates, one of them wins and the other looses.
Resources lockout can be done with stateful desktop applications, but with web applications any lockout scheme you try to implement may only minimize the damage but not prevent it.
Don't try to write an absolutely perfect and secure application. It's already good as it is. Just use it, probably the situation won't come up at all.
If you use LINQ to SQL as your ORM it can handle the issues around changed values using the conflicts collection. However, essentially I'd agree with Mastermind's comment.
I have made a little app for signing up for an event. User input their data and click "sign me in".
Now sometimes people are double in the database, the exact same data that got inserted 2 times very quickly after each other. This can only mean someone clicked the button twice, which caused two posts to happen.
This is common web problem, as credit card apps and forum apps often say: "Clicking once is enough!".
I guess you could solve it by checking for the exact same data to see if the post is unique, but I wonder if there are other methods.
This ofcourse does not count for ASP.NET webforms, because POST doesn't matter as much.
While JavaScript solutions can disable the submit button after it has been clicked, this will have no effect on those people who have JavaScript disabled. You should always make things work correctly without JavaScript before adding it in, otherwise there's no point as users will still be able to bypass the checks by just disabling JavaScript.
If the page where the form appears is dynamically generated, you can add a hidden field which contains some sort of sequence number, a hash, or anything unique. Then you have some server-side validation that will check if a request with that unique value has already come in. When the user submits the form, the unique value is checked against a list of "used" values. If it exists in the list, it's a dupe request and can be discarded. If it doesn't exist, then add it to the list and process as normal. As long as you make sure the value is unique, this guarantees the same form cannot be submitted twice.
Of course, if the page the form is on is not dynamically generated, then you'll need to do it the hard way on the server-side to check that the same information has not already been submitted.
Most of the answers so far have been client-side. On the server-side, you can generate a hidden field with a GUID when you first produce the form, and then record that GUID as a submitted form when the post is received. Check it before doing any more processing.
Whenever a page is requested from the server , generate a unique requestToken , save it in server side,mark status as NOT Processed and pass it along with the current requested page. Now whenever a page submit happens , get the requestToken from the "POST"ed data and check the status and save the data or take alternate action.
Most of the banking applications use this technique to prevent double "POST"ing.So this is a time proven & reliable way of preventing double submissions.
A user-side solution is to disable the submission button via Javascript after the first click.
It has drawbacks, but I see it often used on e-commerce websites.
But, it won't never replace a real server-side validation.
Client side techniques are useful, but you may want to couple it with some server side techniques.
One way to do this is to include a unique token in the form (e.g. a GUID or similar), so that when you come to process the form you can check to see whether the token has already been used, preventing a double submission.
In your case, if you have a table with event visitors, you might include this token as a column.
A client-only solution won't be enough, as stated in many of the answers here. You need to go with a server-side fail-safe.
An often overlooked reason that disabling the submit button doesn't work is, the user can simply refresh the submit target (and click OK on the "are you sure you want to resubmit the POST data?" dialog). Or even, some browsers may implicitly reload the submitted page when you try to save the page to disk (for example, you're trying to save a hard-copy of an order confirmation).
Almost no one has js disabled.
Think about coding your e-commerce website for the 70 year old woman who double clicks every link and button.
All you want to do is add a javascript to prevent her clicking "Order Now" twice.
Yes - check this at the server side too "be defensive" - but don't code for that case. But for the sake of a better UI do it on the client side too.
Here are some scripts that I found:
//
// prevent double-click on submit
//
jQuery('input[type=submit]').click(function(){
if(jQuery.data(this, 'clicked')){
return false;
}
else{
jQuery.data(this, 'clicked', true);
return true;
}
});
and
// Find ALL <form> tags on your page
$('form').submit(function(){
// On submit disable its submit button
$('input[type=submit]', this).attr('disabled', 'disabled');
});
None of the solutions address a load-balance server.
If you have some load balancer, send a UUID (or any type of unique number) to the server to store and read again will not work well if the server is not aware of other servers, because each request could be processed by a different server in a stateless environment. These servers need to read/write to the same place.
If you have multiple servers you will need to have some shared cache (like a Redis) among the servers to read/write the unique value in the same place (what could be an over-engineering solution, but works).
Client side alteration is a common technique:
Disable submit button
Change the screen to a "please wait" screen
If the form was modal, changing the screen back to their usual process (this has the benefit of making things look really slick)
But it's not perfect. It all relies on JS being available and if that's not the case, without back-end duplication detection, you'll get duplicates still.
So my advice is to develop some sort of detection behind the scenes and then improve your form to stop people with JS being able to double-submit.
You can track the number of times the form's been submitted and compare it to the number of unique visits to the page with the form on it in the session.
Beside the many good techniques already mentioned, another simple server-side method, that has the drawback of requiring a session, is to have a session variable that is switched off on the first submit.