Content
View differences
Updated by Markus Kahl almost 4 years ago
**As** an OpenProject user
**I want** work packages to land in the trash before being deleted permanently
**so that** I have a chance to restore them if deleted by accident.
**Acceptance criteria**
* don't delete work packages permanently right away
* allow viewing work packages in trash
* perhaps add filter and query "in trash"
* allow deleting work packages in trash for good
**Discussion**
Even when emptying the trash we could argue that work packages should remain in the database even if inaccessible. Especially important would be to keep the journals to see who deleted a work package in the end.
We keep getting inquiries by users who claim that work packages magically disappeared. Still having the journals around showing when a work package was deleted and by whom would help us a lot here.
Setting confidence as low as it isn't an easy thing. Maybe it would be enough to have a general auditing feature without trash to address the point above but that wouldn't really help users getting their 'missing' data back.
**Implementation Notes**
* we should look into using db views based on a deleted\_at column to implement this
* this way no existing queries would need to be changed at all
**I want** work packages to land in the trash before being deleted permanently
**so that** I have a chance to restore them if deleted by accident.
**Acceptance criteria**
* don't delete work packages permanently right away
* allow viewing work packages in trash
* perhaps add filter and query "in trash"
* allow deleting work packages in trash for good
**Discussion**
Even when emptying the trash we could argue that work packages should remain in the database even if inaccessible. Especially important would be to keep the journals to see who deleted a work package in the end.
We keep getting inquiries by users who claim that work packages magically disappeared. Still having the journals around showing when a work package was deleted and by whom would help us a lot here.
Setting confidence as low as it isn't an easy thing. Maybe it would be enough to have a general auditing feature without trash to address the point above but that wouldn't really help users getting their 'missing' data back.
**Implementation Notes**
* we should look into using db views based on a deleted\_at column to implement this
* this way no existing queries would need to be changed at all