Using OnTime Windows Client (6.0.3.6198).

I appreciate that this one may be difficult to track down and fix.

We just noticed this morning that History for a few of our Defects and Features were not in the correct order.

Below is a snippet from the History of one of our Defects. Notice the date goes March 6 --> March 7 --> March 3.

After a few hours, this seemed to self correct (ie: was in proper order). At different times during the day we have noticed other Defects/Features experiencing this same behavior.

Assigned To changed from Don Jones to Bob Smith

Workflow Step changed from Ready for Test to Testing

Description changed from Nothing to <P><STRONG>Edited by Bob Smith on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 9:37 AM</STRONG><BR>Verify that it still work for #1 and others.</P>

Assigned To changed from Paul Johnson to Dan Jones

Build Number Of Fix changed from 2.3 to 2.44

Workflow Step changed from Fixed to Ready for Test

Build To Test changed from Nothing to 2.44    

See screen shot below ....

Sorry to dredge up a post from the past. 

We have recently noticed this error also with Ontime Version 7.02.7191.

Log items vary in modified order over a period of a few days.  The only reason we have picked it up, is we were looking at the history of a long open defect that was being edited continually. 

This short example displays the date order going from May 6th - 8th and back to 6th.  Should history not just append changes to the end of the file.  It seemed to be doing this until recently.  We have not made any system changes lately that we would even think could have an effect on this.

We are using the Australian / English settings for date-time on our servers. 

Actual Duration changed from 0 hrs to 0.25 hrs

Description changed. Toggle Details

Original Description:

When testing a previous fault, (review external results with Generic Nurse) it was noted that the check box for review external results became ticked. This box becomes ticked, if there are no documents to be reviewed which is correct. But, this should not occur when a user without the relevant access (and given a warning message) selects the function. Edited by Namrata Nath on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 12:26 PM The review ext results becomes ticked on entering a user's case if there are no documents. It was previously putting the tick when user entered the page, irrespective of the access and not on entering the case. Some pages like recommendation check for the completion of this page. This feature was provided by design. Should it be changed?

Changed To:

When testing a previous fault, (review external results with Generic Nurse) it was noted that the check box for review external results became ticked. This box becomes ticked, if there are no documents to be reviewed which is correct. But, this should not occur when a user without the relevant access (and given a warning message) selects the function. Edited by Namrata Nath on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 12:26 PM The review ext results becomes ticked on entering a user's case if there are no documents. It was previously putting the tick when user entered the page, irrespective of the access and not on entering the case. Some pages like recommendation check for the completion of this page. This feature was provided by design. Should it be changed? Edited by Stephen Mee on Thursday, 8 May 2008 at 12:24 PM I think it should be changed. If it is selected in error, it could cause all sorts of problems. Basically, if you do not have the authority to view a screen, then you should not be able to populate it as complete.

expanddiv(EDBAAIA);

Assigned To changed from Stephen Mee to Namrata Nath

Status changed from Ready for Dev Testing to Test Failed: Re-assigned

Description changed. Toggle Details

Original Description:

When testing a previous fault, (review external results with Generic Nurse) it was noted that the check box for review external results became ticked. This box becomes ticked, if there are no documents to be reviewed which is correct. But, this should not occur when a user without the relevant access (and given a warning message) selects the function.

Changed To:

When testing a previous fault, (review external results with Generic Nurse) it was noted that the check box for review external results became ticked. This box becomes ticked, if there are no documents to be reviewed which is correct. But, this should not occur when a user without the relevant access (and given a warning message) selects the function. Edited by Namrata Nath on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 12:26 PM The review ext results becomes ticked on entering a user's case if there are no documents. It was previously putting the tick when user entered the page, irrespective of the access.

expanddiv(EDBAAGA);

Description changed. Toggle Details

Original Description:

When testing a previous fault, (review external results with Generic Nurse) it was noted that the check box for review external results became ticked. This box becomes ticked, if there are no documents to be reviewed which is correct. But, this should not occur when a user without the relevant access (and given a warning message) selects the function. Edited by Namrata Nath on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 12:26 PM The review ext results becomes ticked on entering a user's case if there are no documents. It was previously putting the tick when user entered the page, irrespective of the access.

Changed To:

When testing a previous fault, (review external results with Generic Nurse) it was noted that the check box for review external results became ticked. This box becomes ticked, if there are no documents to be reviewed which is correct. But, this should not occur when a user without the relevant access (and given a warning message) selects the function. Edited by Namrata Nath on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 12:26 PM The review ext results becomes ticked on entering a user's case if there are no documents. It was previously putting the tick when user entered the page, irrespective of the access and not on entering the case. Some pages like recommendation check for the completion of this page. This feature was provided by design. Should it be changed?

expanddiv(EBBAAFA);

Assigned To changed from Namrata Nath to Stephen Mee

Status changed from In Progress to Waiting

Assigned To changed from Stephen Mee to Namrata Nath

Status changed from Waiting to Ready for Dev Testing

Actual Duration changed from 0.25 hrs to 0.916667 hrs

Workflow Step changed from Defect Fix Assigned to Ready for Dev Test

Assigned To changed from Namrata Nath to Stephen Mee

Status changed from Test Failed: Re-assigned to Waiting

Workflow Step changed from Ready for Dev Test to Ready for QA Build