Skip to content
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.

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

Incorrect signature displayed for accessory in Print all assigned view #16074

Closed
lukaspetrik opened this issue Jan 14, 2025 · 3 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
✋ bug Confirmed bug

Comments

@lukaspetrik
Copy link

When Printing all assigned for the user, incorrect signature is displayed for accessory. Assets contain correct signature of the user, but accessories assigned to the user contains signature of a different user - seems like the signature of user which accepted same accessory as a last.

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Create user1
  2. Create user2
  3. Create assetA
  4. Create accessoryA with some quantity, e.g.100
  5. Assign assetA to user1. user1 accepts and provides signature
  6. Assign accessoryA to user1. user1 accepts and provides signature
  7. Assign accessoryA to user2, user2 accepts and provides signature
  8. Print all assigned for user1
    In the output of all assigned for user1, assetA contains signature of user1, but accessoryA contains signature of user2.
    Signatures got mixed for accessories.

This bug is present both on v6.X and also the v7.1.15 - build 16052 (master)

Copy link

welcome bot commented Jan 14, 2025

👋 Thanks for opening your first issue here! If you're reporting a 🐞 bug, please make sure you include steps to reproduce it. We get a lot of issues on this repo, so please be patient and we will get back to you as soon as we can.

@snipe
Copy link
Owner

snipe commented Jan 16, 2025

@marcusmoore I know you were working on some of this - where did we net out?

@snipe snipe added the ✋ bug Confirmed bug label Jan 16, 2025
@marcusmoore
Copy link
Collaborator

@snipe ah yeah...this was reported in #14734. I went down one path before realizing it wasn't fixing the core problem. We have a plan for how to do that (sc-25599) but I haven't written the code for it yet. I'll move this up in the priority list.

@lukaspetrik thank you for reporting and adding steps to reproduce. I'm going to close this and keep the conversation going in #14734

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
✋ bug Confirmed bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants