Bug 1344632

Summary: Default value of TexBox does not correspond to its type
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine Reporter: Jiri Stefanisin <jistefan>
Component: ProvisioningAssignee: Greg McCullough <gmccullo>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Jiri Stefanisin <jistefan>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 5.6.0CC: dajohnso, duhlmann, gmccullo, jhardy, jistefan, obarenbo
Target Milestone: GA   
Target Release: cfme-future   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard: ui:automate
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-03-16 01:33:45 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Jiri Stefanisin 2016-06-10 08:34:00 UTC
Description of problem:
When creating new TextBox in Dialog, type is set to Integer by default but the default value in TextBox remains "".


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create Dialog with dialog field TextBox and set data type as integer for this field
2. Create a Catalog Item and assign the Dialog created in step 1
3. Go Service Catalog and order a service, when submitting the dialog, it should do default validation on data type for Textbox fields.

Actual results:
When type is set to Integer, default value should be set to 0

Expected results:


Additional info:
Found while testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278170

Comment 2 Greg McCullough 2016-06-10 13:03:12 UTC
Erik - I think the important change here is that the edit field needs to default to the type of string.  For the integer type I recall that an empty field will pass nil which is valid and can be interrupted in the scripting layer if needed.  If that is not correct then it likely should default to an integer value when the data type is changed.

Comment 4 Jiri Stefanisin 2017-02-20 12:23:54 UTC
Hello,
i was not aware of this behavior being intended. May I see the specification?