Project and Portfolio Management Practitioners Forum

Mass update does not honor status depencencies settings

Trusted Contributor.

Mass update does not honor status depencencies settings

During a mass update, I need to display field which the status dependency is set as read-only. Because the fields are editable in other statuses, the PPM shows the field as if it were editable.  Even if the user does not change any values, any attempt to act on the workflow actions fails because PPM tries to execute a save to the field that is read-only.


If I set the field as Display Only on the Workbench Field tab, the edit box is not displayed in the Mass Update screen but then I lose the ability to allow the field to be edited in other statuses.


Is there a work-around that will allow a field set as read-only on a specific status to be displayed on the Mass Update schreen and allow actions on the workflow be completed?

Acclaimed Contributor.

Re: Mass update does not honor status depencencies settings

Hi Richard


I just had this issue the other day with the 'priority'-field of a request type in the mass-update.

I'll c&p the issue here as I wrote it to THAT customer - basically, the same applies to your case:


All fields that are in the 'advanced search' filter of a request search will be shown in the mass-update page. They are editable according to the settings in the status dependencies of the Request Type for the fields.
- Open the Request Type from the Workbench;
- In the tab 'Status Dependencies', choose the status in which the mass-update would be applicable;
- Choose the field which should be visible in the mass-update;
- Make sure that this field is editable in the current status;
- Make sure that the field is set to 'Display' and also available in 'Search and Filter' by opening the field in the Request Type and editing it accordingly.

When searching for the request, you must choose the Request Type in the search page, then pressing the 'Advanced Search'-button and ensuring that the field is in the 'Display Columns' window. Then search from this mask. Even if the field is present in 'Display Columns', a search from the main search page (and not from advanced search) will not show this field in mass-update.


So, since ‘priority’ covers all these prerequisites, the problem that you are experiencing is a limitation in that IF a field is available for 'Display' and also available in 'Search and Filter', it will be possible to show this field in the advanced search of the search page and thus as a column in the mass-update.  The option that I see here would be to in the Workbench Request Type move the field over to the ‘available columns’ and not to the ‘display columns’ so it is not per default in the search columns page but only if a user actually moves it over prior to running a mass update. Then this issue should not happen. Let me know if you have questions about this.


An Enhancement Request has been created for this issue which you can follow here:



Problem is related to the status dependencies check by using the mass update.
In our case, the user can only edit the request description when he creates the request (status 'not submitted').
On any other step, the field isn't visible or editable.
Now the user makes a request search to perform a mass update.
He chooses the available columns from the specific request type.
The user needs to select the description to get the information on which request we wants to perform the mass update.
He presses "Search" and get the search result page, which includes all of his selected requets and columns.
Then he marks the requests for the mass update and press mass update.
And now he also get all of the selected columns independent of the status dependencies.
So the user has the possibility to enter a description and the take a workflow action.
Now the system blocks the action because of the status dependencies check.


The system should make this status dependencies check after the user click on the mass update button on the search result page.
And then the description column should be grayed out.
Also, there should be a dedicated access grant, which allows specific security group to perform the mass update and quick edit.


As far as I can see, the decision has been made to not follow up with this Change Request – it has been closed without change.


Let me know if you have questions about it.


Best regards,