Remove the required condition for the authorised field #2378
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
HalcyonJAC
approved these changes
Apr 22, 2024
|
Visit the preview URL for this PR (updated for commit 029113a): https://jac-admin-develop--pr2378-hotfix-make-authoris-zt0q6ahz.web.app (expires Wed, 22 May 2024 13:23:09 GMT) 🔥 via Firebase Hosting GitHub Action 🌎 Sign: 4e92cf51659207b0ae3509dc5c40edde50edfec0 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What's included?
A user requested that the authorisations should not be a required field, ie they should not have to specify s9(1) nor Class 1 Ticket.
Closes jac-uk/ticketing-system#288
Who should test?
✅ Product owner
✅ Developers
✅ UTG
How to test?
Repeat above checking one and both of the checkboxes can be checked and the form submitted.
Risk - how likely is this to impact other areas?
🟢 No risk - this is a self-contained piece of work
Additional context
Related permissions
Have permissions been considered for this functionality?
PREVIEW:DEVELOP
can be OFF, DEVELOP or STAGING