Our RT3 setup is somewhat strict. Different groups have
access to only their queue. However, every once in a while
a ticket in one queue will DependOn a ticket in another
queue. For Ticket objects it would be nice if a user
that has rights for a ticket to also have ShowTicket
for other tickets it depends on.
How does everyone feel about an RT config variable to
control this?
I think psuedo code for he new HasRight would
look something like:
if ( Object == Ticket and Right == ShowTicket )
push MyDependedOn, @EquivObjects
Or should ShowTicketDepenedsOn just be a new right?
Our RT3 setup is somewhat strict. Different groups have
access to only their queue. However, every once in a while
a ticket in one queue will DependOn a ticket in another
queue. For Ticket objects it would be nice if a user
that has rights for a ticket to also have ShowTicket
for other tickets it depends on.
How does everyone feel about an RT config variable to
control this?
I think psuedo code for he new HasRight would
look something like:
if ( Object == Ticket and Right == ShowTicket )
push MyDependedOn, @EquivObjects
Or should ShowTicketDepenedsOn just be a new right?
What do you think?
I’m not comfortable taking this functionality into RT’s core, but I am
interested in making it easy for you to locally extend RT to do this.
I’d love to hear what refactoring would make it useful
For Ticket objects it would be nice if a user
that has rights for a ticket to also have ShowTicket
for other tickets it depends on.
I’m not comfortable taking this functionality into RT’s core, but I am
interested in making it easy for you to locally extend RT to do
this. I’d love to hear what refactoring would make it useful
you could do this with CC or AdminCC, but then they’d get mail, which
might be wrong. Every now and then there seems to be something that
would be solved by “just like CC, but never email”
you could do this with CC or AdminCC, but then they’d get mail, which
might be wrong. Every now and then there seems to be something that
would be solved by “just like CC, but never email”
… which can sometimes be accomodated by careful selection
of scrip actions.
you could do this with CC or AdminCC, but then they’d get mail, which
might be wrong. Every now and then there seems to be something that
would be solved by “just like CC, but never email”
… which can sometimes be accomodated by careful selection
of scrip actions.