Preserve owner when returning to backlog?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Chris Allan

unread,
Feb 7, 2011, 7:56:10 AM2/7/11
to Agilo for Scrum
Hi,

When using the whiteboard with the process that our team has we'd like
to preserve ownership when returning tickets to the backlog. It seems
like, after reviewing the JavaScript and Python code itself, that this
is a rather involved change.

Any direction would be appreciated.

-Chris

Martin Häcker

unread,
Feb 8, 2011, 4:32:23 AM2/8/11
to ag...@googlegroups.com, Chris Allan
Hi Chris,

Am 07.02.11 13:56, schrieb Chris Allan:


> When using the whiteboard with the process that our team has we'd like
> to preserve ownership when returning tickets to the backlog. It seems
> like, after reviewing the JavaScript and Python code itself, that this
> is a rather involved change.

Well, you can do this if you change the code, but I would like to
question the reason for this: What is the usecase you are trying to
achieve by doing this?

We built the tool like that to reflect that if you drag a task back to
the backlog column in the whiteboard what you're really saying that you
aren't working on that task anymore, so it should be available for
anybody else to pick up (for maximum development speed).

If you want to change this, you will have to comment out line 130 and
131 in agilo_pro/htdocs/js/task.js and line 201 in
agilo/ticket/workflow_support.py

Hope this helps!

Regards,
Martin

Felix Schwarz

unread,
Feb 11, 2011, 1:24:00 PM2/11/11
to ag...@googlegroups.com

you could also try to create a workflow step from closed -> new which
does not delete the owner. Agilo tries to find a configured workflow
action before forcing it's actions so maybe you can achieve your goal
without source modification.

fs

Martin Häcker

unread,
Feb 15, 2011, 4:38:33 AM2/15/11
to ag...@googlegroups.com, Felix Schwarz
Hi Felix,

Am 11.02.11 19:24, schrieb Felix Schwarz:

Well, in theory it does, but I found that there are also two explicit
removals of owner in the code that got triggered anyway - which is why I
think the source change is neccessary. :/ At least the js modification
is sadly required.

Martin

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages