[MGNLHARDLK-44] As an editor I want my locked nodes put in 'excluded list' when someone try to lock its parent node Created: 12/May/15 Updated: 04/Oct/18 Resolved: 04/Oct/18 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Project - Telia - Hard Locking (closed) |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | 0.1 |
| Fix Version/s: | 0.3x |
| Type: | Story | Priority: | Neutral |
| Reporter: | Phu Ha | Assignee: | Phu Ha |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | Code | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Template: |
|
||||||||
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
||||||||
| Date of First Response: | |||||||||
| Account: | TeliaSonera (TELIA) | ||||||||
| Epic Link: | Hard Locking | ||||||||
| Sprint: | Telia - Sprint WishList | ||||||||
| Description |
|
In the Assets App If the node gets locked by user A, meaning, by design, the child nodes should be locked by user A also Expected result: The parent node cannot be locked by someone else so that it overwrites the lock in its child nodes by user A |
| Comments |
| Comment by Phu Ha [ 13/May/15 ] |
|
This is by nature of design, we tend not to implement the 'excluded list'. So skip it for now, this can be 'Would Have' feature, meaning not any commitment on the Scope of Works, and can be planned later |
| Comment by Viet Nguyen [ 04/Oct/18 ] |
|
If a user lock a parent node with the option of also locking its children. |