Or just http://test.dwagn.org/new shows the problem too, and it doesn't even have a name set yet. I'm thinking this is a fairly easy fix.
What's supposed to happen on a new view when the card exists? That should be an error or warning and then put up the name for edit so you can make it unique? Sort of an odd case. I see that it puts up a message when you are editing the name and it matches an existing card. Maybe a bit trickier that I first thought.
Oh yeah, that issue also needs a ticket. Maybe show an error when trying to add a card that already exists?
test.dwagn.org/new is offering to create a new card named new. Looks completely correct to me.
how are you trying to add a card that exists and not getting an error?
I didn't actually checked what Gerry was saying - yeah, it looks fine to me.
What I thought he was seeing was something like this: Try http://test.dwagn.org/foo?view=new and you get an add-a-card interface even though the card exists. Definitely an edge case, but no reason not to ticket it for handling at some point.
I'm not sure it's not correct to show the new form. What' incorrect is interface that leads you there, right?
Both incorrect imho, but it's such an edge case I am not going to advocate much for anything.
here's where I am on this ticket:
1. losing the name field (and the name altogether) when changing a type on a new card (eg /card/new) is a BUG. (tracked here!)
2. getting a new form when you explicitly request a new form (even on an existing card) is NOT a bug. this is helpful for wagneering. You should get an error when you submit the form, but the form itself is just a static view. (You can push back on that, but please don't do that here. It's not really relevant)
3. if you were to get the new form on an existing card without explicitly asking for it, THAT would be a bug. But I don't think that's happening.
4. the address "/new" alone has no special meaning to Wagn. it's just looking for a card named "new". I would suggest we stay away from that particular cardname / url for the purposes of this ticket unless we notice some behavior there that is inconsistent with behavior for other normal names.
It looks to me like issue #1 above got addressed at some point. I'll go ahead and attribute it to 1.13 ;)
afaik, there aren't any other issues here that we've agreed are bugs.