Copying Asset doesn't allow assignment

E-werd

When I copy an Asset I am unable to assign it to a contact until I save and edit the asset. The "Assigned To" field is missing from the Assignment tab on the copy modal.

wrongecho

Hey @E-werd, thanks for getting in touch.

I've taken a peek into this and can see there's some weird logic around asset assignment…

client_asset_add_modal.php - "Assigned to" only shows if type filter (in GET) isn't network

<?php if ($_GET['type'] !== 'network' && $_GET['type'] !== 'servers' && $_GET['type'] !== 'other') { ?>
    <div class="form-group">
        <label>Assigned To</label>
[...]

client_asset_edit_modal.php - "Assigned to" always shows

client_asset_copy_modal.php - "Assigned to" only shows if asset isn't a FW/Router/SW/AP/Server, etc? (I think this also causes the bug reported as $asset_type would be null in this modal?)

<?php if ($asset_type !== 'Firewall/Router' && $asset_type !== 'Switch' && $asset_type !== 'Access Point' && $asset_type !== 'Printer' && $asset_type !== 'Server' && $asset_type !== 'Virtual Machine') { ?>
    <div class="form-group">
        <label>Assigned To</label>

@johnny - Any specific reason as to why we do this? Presumably it's just outdated code, but wanting to know what your preference is.

Personally, I think all assets should be assignable to contacts and to let the tech/user choose whether to use the field or not.

johnny

Initially I wanted only workstations and laptops to be assigned a contact.

1 contact per workstation or laptop.

It didn't make sense to me to assign a contact to a network device or server.

The logic is clearly broken as it sits

eventually I may make the assets on the side nav a drop down

and list

Desktops & Laptops
Servers & VMs
Network Devices
Printers & Copiers
Other

Each would display their most important fields in the list view as well as the edit add copy modals

wrongecho

johnny

It didn't make sense to me to assign a contact to a network device or server.

In larger orgs app & database severs usually end up having owners (e.g. the devs responsible for them). I just figured this field would be helpful in co-managed situations.

johnny

ah I see what your saying so in that case it does make sense, I will correct it across the board

johnny

Fixed in this commit @E-werd Go ahead and update and let us know if this works good for you.

Commit:

itflow-org/itflow90ac704

E-werd

johnny It looks good now, shows up as expected.

I didn't consider that it was related to the server/switch assets I was creating, I assumed it was very generic.

Thanks for the fix!