Skip to content

Conversation

@Hipska
Copy link
Contributor

@Hipska Hipska commented Oct 2, 2025

Base information

Question Answer
Related to a SourceForge thead / Another PR / Combodo ticket? N/A
Type of change? Enhancement

Objective

When clicking on a Typology item from a linked object, it is sometimes handy to see which other objects are also linking to the same Typology object.

Proposed solution

Add tabs to the Typology objects to see which other objects are using this Typology.

Checklist before requesting a review

  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • I have tested all changes I made on an iTop instance
  • I have added a unit test, otherwise I have explained why I couldn't
  • Is the PR clear and detailed enough so anyone can understand digging in the code?

Checklist of things to do before PR is ready to merge

  • Add dictionary items when the additional fields are accepted

@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to First review needed in Combodo PRs dashboard Oct 2, 2025
@jf-cbd jf-cbd moved this from First review needed to Hacktoberfest in Combodo PRs dashboard Oct 7, 2025
@jf-cbd jf-cbd changed the title feat(Typology): Add useful tabs to certain typology classes N°7570 - feat(Typology): Add useful tabs to certain typology classes Oct 16, 2025
Copy link
Member

@jf-cbd jf-cbd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for your PR, here are a few notices :)

Co-authored-by: jf-cbd <121934370+jf-cbd@users.noreply.github.com>
@jf-cbd jf-cbd moved this from Hacktoberfest to Pending functional review in Combodo PRs dashboard Nov 3, 2025
@v-dumas
Copy link
Contributor

v-dumas commented Nov 28, 2025

Hello Hipska,
Have you tested the use case, of adding or removing ospatches (or any other sub-objects)?
Add means moving them from one OS version to another. When do you need to do this ? It is highly subject to errors. And if you really do, the bulk modify is much better to control your changes.
Remove means empty the osversion of an ospatch (or multiple), why would you do that? You should rather replace the osversion if it was wrong by the correct one using the bulk modify of ospatches.

As a conclusion, our policy for Typology is to propose "add_only", nothing else, which means allow sub-object creation.
For the "edit_when" option, the policy is more open, if there are no dependencies, it can be omitted, which means
you can create a sub-object in read or edition of the host.
(This "edit_mode" "add_only" should have been named "create_only")

In some case like "model" and "brand", because of dependencies and class restriction, even this "add_only" mode is nearly unusable. So me might prevent even the creation in the standard model.

Translation are missing.

@Hipska
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hipska commented Dec 2, 2025

@jf-cbd @v-dumas You were right. It's indeed not possible to remove linked items using the add_remove mode. I was confused and actually meant to use the in_place mode.

I tried all new lists and was able to create and remove items this way:

  • Brand
    • Model
    • IOSVersion
  • OSVersion
    • OSPatch
  • OSFamily
    • OSVersion

Translations are indeed missing. Are we sure these new lists would be accepted to be added in the datamodel? Then I will make the translations for them..

@jf-cbd
Copy link
Member

jf-cbd commented Dec 5, 2025

@jf-cbd @v-dumas You were right. It's indeed not possible to remove linked items using the add_remove mode. I was confused and actually meant to use the in_place mode.

I tried all new lists and was able to create and remove items this way:

* Brand
  
  * Model
  * IOSVersion

* OSVersion
  
  * OSPatch

* OSFamily
  
  * OSVersion

Translations are indeed missing. Are we sure these new lists would be accepted to be added in the datamodel? Then I will make the translations for them..

Yes it has been functionally accepted so it will be integrated in iTop :)

@jf-cbd jf-cbd moved this from Pending functional review to Pending technical review in Combodo PRs dashboard Dec 5, 2025
@Hipska Hipska marked this pull request as draft December 5, 2025 14:37
@Hipska Hipska marked this pull request as ready for review December 5, 2025 15:59
# Conflicts:
#	datamodels/2.x/itop-config-mgmt/dictionaries/en.dict.itop-config-mgmt.php
@Hipska Hipska requested a review from jf-cbd December 5, 2025 16:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

Status: Pending technical review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants