RT Essentials by Dave Rolsky, Darren Chamberlain, Richard Foley, Jesse Vincent, Robert Spier The unconfirmed error reports are from readers. They have not yet been approved or disproved by the author or editor and represent solely the opinion of the reader. Here's a key to the markup: [page-number]: serious technical mistake {page-number}: minor technical mistake : important language/formatting problem (page-number): language change or minor formatting problem ?page-number?: reader question or request for clarification This page was updated April 23, 2007. UNCONFIRMED errors and comments from readers: (42) Associating Related Tickets: paragraph 1, line 5; reference to Figure 3-8 should be Figure 3-9. [42] Last paragraph; The description of Parent/Child vs DependsOn/DependedOnBy is reversed. Dependency relationships prevent the user from resolving tickets when there are outstanding dependencies. Parent/Child have no such requirement. (42) Second and third paragraphs; The descriptions of Depends On and Depended On By, and of Parents and Children, is confusing. Paragraph one introduces Depends On and Depended On By. Paragraph two continues talking about those. The second sentence in that paragraph talks about the "parent" and "child" tickets (lower case), which is a bit confusing when there are also "Parent" and "Children" fields which are not the parent and child we're talking about now. The key point in this paragraph is that a "Depends On" cannot be closed until all its "Depended On By" relatives are closed. The first sentence of the third paragraph starts off as though we are only just now talking about the Depends relationships in contrast to the "parent and child" (lower case). But we were just talking about Depends in the previous paragraph. It goes on to say that the relationship is not enforced for Depends, but the previous paragraph said it was enforced for Depends. Nowhere are the "Parents" and "Children" (with capitals, matching the field names) described. Experimentally, it seems that the relationship is enforced for Depends, but not enforced for Parent/Children, which is what one might expect based on the names. So it looks to me like the second paragraph should say something like this: You can create this relationship from the other direction as well: on the Links form for the original ticket you can enter the new ticket's number in the Depends On field. Once this relationship is established, the Depends On ticket cannot be resolved until the Depended On By tickets are resolved. The third paragraph should say something like this: The Parents/Children relationships are similar to the Depends On/Depended On By relationships. The practical difference is that RT doesn't enforce the relationships. With Depends relationships, the parent ticket cannot be resolved until all the child tickets are resolved, but with Parent/Children relationships, either ticket can be resolved without the other. And then the last sentence from the original second paragraph could finish things up as a new fourth paragraph, since it is true for both the Parent/Children and the Depends: A ticket can have multiple Parents/Children and/or multiple Depends On/Depended On By, which can be used to create arbitrarily complex and interdependent workflows. {42} last sentence in last paragraph; I checked that with version 3.4.1 (the one that ships with Debian Sarge), and I think the sentence should read: "With Depends On/Depended On By relationships, the parent ticker cannot be resolved until all the child tickets are resolved, but with parent/child relationships, either ticket can be resolved without the other." [42/43] Associating Related Tickets section; The whole "Associating Related Tickets" section would benefit from a rewrite. RT provides three types of relationships for associating tickets, so a better structure for this section would be to provide just the background in paragraph one, followed by a separate paragraph for each relationship type. (That's almost what's done, except that paragraph 1 contains part of the explanation of the first relationship). Each of these last three paragraphs would be clearly labelled by relationship type. The first paragraph should not include the stuff about "Depends On/Depended On By". The way it is now makes it look like this relationship type is the one way RT provides to associate tickets. It then goes on to contradict this notion in paragraphs 3 & 4. Paragraph 2 is confusing - it is describing the "Depends On/Depended On By" relationship, but it talks about the parent and child tickets in this relationship; parent/child is a different kind of relationship. Paragraph 3 states that in a "Depends On/Depended On By" relationship, "RT doesn't enforce the relationships". This contradicts the previous paragraph, and is incorrect. It also states that "With parent/child relationships, the parent ticket cannot be resolved until all the child tickets are resolved, but with Depends On/Depended On By relationships, either ticket can be resolved without the other". This is exactly the wrong way round. Consistency in how the three relationships are presented would be good - currently, the "Depends On/Depended On By" is italicized with all words having an uppercase first letter; the "parent/child" is not italicized and is in lower case. The "Refers to" is italicized but has only the first word's first letter uppercased - and it only containts half the relationship (the "Referred to by" part is omitted). So, three relationship descriptions, three different styles! [94] Both sample templates; The 'Depended-On-By: TOP' line is in the Content: section which does not work correctly (at least in 3.4.5). Moving the lines above the Content: section solved the problem. [122] Somewhere; Should probably mention that a user kan be "Privileged" otherwise user using RT::Interface::CLI will have a problem creating privileged users.