Skip to content

FOUR-8972 #4889

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
pmPaulis merged 1 commit into from
Jun 19, 2023
Merged

FOUR-8972 #4889

pmPaulis merged 1 commit into from
Jun 19, 2023

Conversation

@pmPaulis
Copy link
Contributor

@pmPaulis pmPaulis commented Jun 16, 2023 •
edited by fagubla
Loading

Issue & Reproduction Steps

Register some events related to user activity events according to the PRD.
Make some changes related to label and getChanges

Solution

  • Improve the tickets definition

How to Test

Check the actions related to
- CategoryCreated.php
- CategoryUpdated.php
- CustomizeUiUpdated.php
- EnvironmentVariablesCreated.php
- EnvironmentVariablesDeleted.php
- EnvironmentVariablesUpdated.php
- FilesUpdated.php
- GroupCreated.php
- ProcessArchived.php
- ProcessCreated.php
- ProcessPublished.php
- ProcessRestored.php
- ScreenCreated.php
- ScreenDeleted.php
- ScriptCreated.php
- ScriptDeleted.php
- ScriptExecutorCreated.php
- ScriptExecutorDeleted.php
- ScriptExecutorUpdated.php
- ScriptUpdated.php
- SettingsUpdated.php
- TemplateCreated.php
- TemplateUpdated.php
- TokenCreated.php
- TokenDeleted.php

Related Tickets & Packages

FOUR-8972

Code Review Checklist

  • I have pulled this code locally and tested it on my instance, along with any associated packages.
  • This code adheres to ProcessMaker Coding Guidelines.
  • This code includes a unit test or an E2E test that tests its functionality, or is covered by an existing test.
  • This solution fixes the bug reported in the original ticket.
  • This solution does not alter the expected output of a component in a way that would break existing Processes.
  • This solution does not implement any breaking changes that would invalidate documentation or cause existing Processes to fail.
  • This solution has been tested with enterprise packages that rely on its functionality and does not introduce bugs in those packages.
  • This code does not duplicate functionality that already exists in the framework or in ProcessMaker.
  • This ticket conforms to the PRD associated with this part of ProcessMaker.

Enviroment

ci:deploy

fagubla
fagubla requested changes Jun 16, 2023
View reviewed changes
@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 16, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

1 similar comment
@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 16, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmPaulis pmPaulis force-pushed the feature/FOUR-8972 branch from c234441 to 6dce8d7 Compare June 16, 2023 16:28
@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 16, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmPaulis pmPaulis force-pushed the feature/FOUR-8972 branch from 6dce8d7 to 036e9bb Compare June 16, 2023 17:26
@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 16, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 16, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

4 similar comments
@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 16, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 16, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 16, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 16, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmPaulis pmPaulis force-pushed the feature/FOUR-8972 branch from 036e9bb to 65c123c Compare June 16, 2023 23:51
@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 17, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmPaulis pmPaulis force-pushed the feature/FOUR-8972 branch from 65c123c to e3cb845 Compare June 19, 2023 13:26
@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 19, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmPaulis pmPaulis force-pushed the feature/FOUR-8972 branch from e3cb845 to 158b204 Compare June 19, 2023 13:46
@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 19, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmPaulis pmPaulis force-pushed the feature/FOUR-8972 branch from 158b204 to 84d636c Compare June 19, 2023 14:52
@pmkerberos
Copy link

pmkerberos commented Jun 19, 2023

QA server was successfully deployed https://ci-b1d9f0e151.eng.processmaker.net

@pmPaulis pmPaulis merged commit b367744 into feature/FOUR-8121 Jun 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@fagubla fagubla fagubla approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@pmPaulis @pmkerberos @fagubla