List:Eventum General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Joao Prado Maia Date:July 14 2004 1:40pm
Subject:RE: More Eventum bugs and feature requests
View as plain text  
Phil,

> I guess that would work also, and would be more consistent.  However, I
> personally like the ability to just switch on the fly, as it is one step
> shorter in getting to where I want to be.
>

Well, that makes sense. You would usually only switch the project in the
issue details page to go to the list of issues and work on something else.


> My definition of an external customer is someone who does not have access
> to the web interface.  The following events occurred:
>
> - External customer sent E-mail to support alias
> - E-mail was associated as a new issue
>      - I'm the only staff member on the notification list
>      - External customer is Other: in the notification list
> - I reply to external customer
> - External customer replies to my reply
>      - Eventum auto associates the E-mail to the issue
>      - External customer receives a duplicate copy of their reply to me,
>        that appears to be sent from "Joe User <support@stripped>"
>
> This exact thing was happening before, but only when a reply was made to
> an unassociated E-mail.  In this case, the E-mail is assigned to
> an issue,
> so I don't know what's going on.
>

Yes, I'll try to reproduce this.


> My users are demanding it, so if you don't want to add it, I will add it
> myself as a locally supported change.  Personally, I don't care how it
> gets done, as long as I'm not spending more time fighting Eventum issues
> than I am solving real issues.  I'm just a lowly sysadmin grunt
> after all,
> not a programmer. :)
>

You still didn't say exactly what you suggest for this problem.


> While I understand your point, I think you've contradicted yourself
> a little bit.  From my perspective, patches are pointless if they're for
> "very personal" changes, because they would only be applicable to us
> internally.  I don't want to waste effort creating and submitting patches
> if they're not going to be generally useful to others.
>

Well, I meant patches as in new reports. From experience, creating the
reports for someone is never final, and there's always someone who wants
something different. So my point is that if I spend time developing
something for your needs, some other user will ask for a different report,
and so on. So I rather leave the reporting system as it is, and leave
further improvements to come from the community at large.


> So why did you bother adding the "automatically close confirmation popup
> windows" in the first place?  From a UI perspective, it seems
> pointless to
> have it as it doesn't solve the real problem.  My suggestion is to change
> it to "Only generate popup windows on errors?".
>

Because we have internal users who want to see the popup's message, even if
it is a positive one. Even if I implement what you are requesting, the popup
will still have to show up, since the popup has the code that process the
form's submissions.


> For some of our staff members it is, and for the exact reason you
> mention.
> The notification list is not static and can change during the course of
> resolving a particular issue.  It is useful to keep a notification list
> history.  Our staff want to be certain of who notes go to, because of the
> [sometimes] sensative information they enter in those fields regarding
> external customers.
>

Ok, I'll add it to the TODO list then.

--Joao

Thread
More Eventum bugs and feature requestsPhillip Steinbachs14 Jul
  • RE: More Eventum bugs and feature requestsJoao Prado Maia14 Jul
    • RE: More Eventum bugs and feature requestsPhillip Steinbachs14 Jul
      • RE: More Eventum bugs and feature requestsJoao Prado Maia14 Jul
        • RE: More Eventum bugs and feature requestsJ. Steinbachs14 Jul
          • RE: More Eventum bugs and feature requestsJoao Prado Maia14 Jul