• Type: Bug Part
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: L3 - Default
• Fix Version/s: 2.4.0-alpha1, 2.4.0
• Affects Version/s: None
• Component/s: frontend
• Labels:

  None

This is the controller panel for Smart Panels app

1. 

   Screen Shot 2019-01-18 at 10.44.51 AM.png

   37 kB

   18/Jan/19 10:45 AM

[OPT-1831] setting process part makes view grey in views that are not process instance duration

Collapse comment: Sebastian Stamm added a comment - 21/Jan/19 2:46 PM

Sebastian Stamm added a comment - 21/Jan/19 2:46 PM

I am not sure how we want to solve this problem. The situation is, that we define a process part and do not reset it when changing the view (in the same way that we do not change the configuration when changing the view). The backend however returns 500 for this request because having a process part does not make sense for this view.

We have two ways to deal with this:

• We try to determine when to reset the process part when updating the report in the frontend. That would be inconsistent with how we do it for the visualization configuration, where we keep the fields even if they do not make sense for the current visualization
• We ignore the process part when evaluating the report, which would maybe make the API harder to understand (I can define a process part but sometimes it is ignored and other times not)

johannes.heinemann, sebastian.bathke, any thoughts?

Expand comment: Sebastian Stamm added a comment - 21/Jan/19 2:46 PM

Sebastian Stamm added a comment - 21/Jan/19 2:46 PM I am not sure how we want to solve this problem. The situation is, that we define a process part and do not reset it when changing the view (in the same way that we do not change the configuration when changing the view). The backend however returns 500 for this request because having a process part does not make sense for this view. We have two ways to deal with this: We try to determine when to reset the process part when updating the report in the frontend. That would be inconsistent with how we do it for the visualization configuration, where we keep the fields even if they do not make sense for the current visualization We ignore the process part when evaluating the report, which would maybe make the API harder to understand (I can define a process part but sometimes it is ignored and other times not) johannes.heinemann , sebastian.bathke , any thoughts?

Collapse comment: Johannes added a comment - 21/Jan/19 2:54 PM

Johannes added a comment - 21/Jan/19 2:54 PM

sebastian.stamm: Yes, I do. I think that the process part should be handled like the view, group by and visualization field as it is not part of the configuration field. I do not fully understand why you need to handle the reset of the process part the same way as you do the configuration, but let's have a chat about this.

Expand comment: Johannes added a comment - 21/Jan/19 2:54 PM

Johannes added a comment - 21/Jan/19 2:54 PM sebastian.stamm : Yes, I do. I think that the process part should be handled like the view, group by and visualization field as it is not part of the configuration field. I do not fully understand why you need to handle the reset of the process part the same way as you do the configuration, but let's have a chat about this.

Collapse comment: Sebastian Stamm added a comment - 21/Jan/19 3:48 PM

Sebastian Stamm added a comment - 21/Jan/19 3:48 PM

We agreed to adjust the parameters field in the frontend when necessary so that the backend only receives valid evaluation requests.

Expand comment: Sebastian Stamm added a comment - 21/Jan/19 3:48 PM

Sebastian Stamm added a comment - 21/Jan/19 3:48 PM We agreed to adjust the parameters field in the frontend when necessary so that the backend only receives valid evaluation requests.