| *** jtomasek has joined #storyboard | 06:44 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 08:03 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #storyboard | 08:03 | |
| Zara | zaro: \o/ sorry, I'd gone away for the evening by then, but thank you! | 09:08 |
|---|---|---|
| openstackgerrit | Adam Coldrick proposed openstack-infra/storyboard: Position archived items at the bottom of worklists https://review.openstack.org/351265 | 09:13 |
| openstackgerrit | Adam Coldrick proposed openstack-infra/storyboard-webclient: Complex priorities UI in stories https://review.openstack.org/312666 | 09:50 |
| *** alexismonville has joined #storyboard | 10:21 | |
| *** alexismonville has quit IRC | 10:56 | |
| Zara | draft builds look promising for complex priorities ui | 11:11 |
| SotK | I should note that https://review.openstack.org/351265 is required to guarantee no confusing numbers in the complex priorities ui | 11:13 |
| Zara | *nod* I wondered about that yesterday; does it mean multiple things can have the same list_position? | 11:15 |
| SotK | it isn't prohibited, but it should never happen except for archived things | 11:19 |
| Zara | okay, I was just curious since I'd assumed it was unique. | 11:20 |
| Zara | then that patch suggested it wasn't and I was like 'oh hey' | 11:20 |
| *** alexismonville has joined #storyboard | 11:24 | |
| Zara | oh, it's a nice day today | 11:50 |
| pedroalvarez | EOW? | 11:57 |
| Zara | yes! and sunny! | 11:58 |
| pedroalvarez | don't say that too laud, please | 12:00 |
| Zara | :P | 12:06 |
| Zara | huh, I have a cup of tea that I have no memory of making | 12:19 |
| Zara | (I am ridiculously tired today. I think all the sleep I've ever missed in my life has caught up with me this morning.) | 12:20 |
| Zara | so if you ask a question and I reply with 'dfkazzzzzzzzzzzkrl', that's probably what's going on | 12:21 |
| Zara | /end PSA | 12:22 |
| pedroalvarez | that probably means that you are using the keboard as a pillow | 12:22 |
| Zara | I'm caught! the x220 has such comfy curved buttons! | 12:23 |
| Zara | + I can lean the screen right back to make room for my face | 12:24 |
| Zara | yay, recheck worked on the archived items position patch | 12:33 |
| Zara | testing now | 12:33 |
| Zara | oh whoa the sun suddenly got really hot | 12:35 |
| Zara | it might actually burn me | 12:35 |
| Zara | what is this | 12:35 |
| Zara | observation, not a bug: when you add an item to a worklist, it seems it becomes the penultimate visible item on that worklist | 12:49 |
| Zara | I'd expect it to be added to the end but it doesn't cause any problems that I can see, just mentioning it | 12:50 |
| Zara | oh, so the worklist items endpoint stuff I saw the other day is also the case in the api; browsing to api/v1/worklists/11/items gives me "'AppenderQuery' object has no attribute 'sort'" | 12:58 |
| Zara | and the total number of items in a worklist, listed on the dashboard, includes archived items (I think)-- it's higher than the total number of visible things in the worklist, anyway. | 13:00 |
| Zara | I can't remember if we found this earlier or not. I know there's a related problem with displaying the total number of items in automatic worklists, with a patch in review, that we wanted to test on lots of data | 13:01 |
| SotK | the penultimate visible item seems kinda like a bug | 13:17 |
| Zara | I wondered if it might hint something weirder is going on | 13:17 |
| Zara | I just didn't want to be like 'THIS IS TERRIBLE' when rn it's at the 'huh, that's odd' point. | 13:18 |
| Zara | I'm not yet sure how often it happens, if it's only the case for items that have previously been archived, or vice versa, or what | 13:18 |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #storyboard | 14:03 | |
| Zara | thanks for all the comments on my ol' WiP patches, SotK! | 15:21 |
| Zara | can't believe they're already so old. time has flown. | 15:22 |
| SotK | it sure has | 15:26 |
| SotK | you're welcome btw | 15:26 |
| Zara | :) well, they're thorough! | 15:27 |
| Zara | I wonder if it's worth having 'depends on 351265' in the commit message for complex priorities, or if that's ott | 15:29 |
| persia | I think that is better expressed by git parentage, personally. | 15:30 |
| Zara | alternatively, if someone wants to +1 351265, I can merge that now | 15:30 |
| Zara | should've mentioned it earlier today, oops | 15:30 |
| Zara | I just left it for a bit since I figured people would review but I probably shoulda done the 'HERE IS A PATCH' thing. | 15:31 |
| Zara | thanks, mr. persia sir! | 15:31 |
| persia | I'm only ashamed I missed the extra 't' last time. | 15:32 |
| Zara | after staring blankly for 8 minutes I can confirm that I don't know what "the extra 't'" refers to. I'm very sleepy today so it could very well be my brain failing to do brain things. | 15:41 |
| Zara | btw, this is a browse to the items endpoint for a worklist: https://storyboard.openstack.org/api/v1/worklists/1/items I don't *think* this is the desired behaviour, but I could be wrong, so this is in my box of 'SotK does this look weird to you?' | 15:42 |
| Zara | things | 15:42 |
| Zara | (unfortunately, that box is the size of a city and I can never remember what's in it) | 15:43 |
| openstackgerrit | Merged openstack-infra/storyboard: Position archived items at the bottom of worklists https://review.openstack.org/351265 | 15:46 |
| Zara | \o/ | 15:46 |
| SotK | heh, that must've bitrotted since we don't actively use that endpoint | 15:49 |
| SotK | (anymore) | 15:49 |
| Zara | heh. :) I was looking at it while looking at the python client worklistitems patch, since syntax consistent with other things in the client *would* use that endpoint (though bilal's in-review patch doesn't) | 15:51 |
| Zara | ( https://review.openstack.org/#/c/333939/ is the patch I'm referring to) | 15:53 |
| * SotK sends https://review.openstack.org/351819 to fix it | 15:59 | |
| * SotK is gerritbot again | 16:00 | |
| Zara | hello gerritbot! | 16:02 |
| Zara | complex priorities seem to work as I'd expect! :D I did forget briefly that you're required to subscribe to a list after you create it, and I think 'automatic subscription to things you create' is going to be requested a bunch. | 16:15 |
| Zara | I don't think it's needed for complex priorities to work in practice, since most people will be subscribing to lists they didn't create | 16:17 |
| Zara | (if you created it, you probably know which stories are in it. I suppose it depends how many people are likely to add items to a list, and under what circumstances, though) | 16:18 |
| Zara | oh, and it works for automatic ones too, nice. ideally it wouldn't display the order in the list for those, so as not to confuse people, but I'm fine with that being an adjustment later. | 16:19 |
| persia | My imagintion is that there are essentially three classes of priority identification: a) a group collectively identifies the priorities, to gauge progress against a milestone; b) a person sets priorities to be accomplished by their reports; c) a person identifies things that bother them, so they can be reminded that they care later, when they might have time. | 16:20 |
| persia | All of these should be fine without autosubscription to created worklists. | 16:21 |
| Zara | I could see it being handy in b) and c), as it makes it a bit more obvious if someone adds something to the list that shouldn't be on it, but yeah, not a very frequent scenario, and there are other ways to mitigate that | 16:23 |
| persia | And I think most of the other uses of worklists should be fine without being also expressed as priorities (except as a side effect) | 16:24 |
| Zara | I also notice that at the moment a worklist that constitutes a lane in a board will not appear on the list, although it's possible to subscribe to the worklist. I think that will catch people out, but it's something to iterate on (and maybe everything will be fine-- so I'd rather wait and see what happens there) | 16:25 |
| persia | Given the implementation, I find it somewhat cool to have stories automatically annotated as being in some automatic filters could create, to help understand state, entirely aside from the priority. | 16:25 |
| persia | Yeah, the worklists/lanes interaction thing has always been a bit funny. | 16:25 |
| persia | And I think the people who want worklists don't spend a lot of time using boards and vice versa, so it will take a while of having both sorts of users using the same tooling to understand all the oddities in the interaction. | 16:26 |
| persia | Anyway, do you see anything else for which you want to hold complex priorities, or is it good to land? | 16:27 |
| Zara | I think it's fine; I'm doing some lastminute 'check this doesn't do anything weird when the user is logged out' sort of checks | 16:30 |
| persia | Makes sense. While this feature enables some very cool things, it would be a shame to have it cause some problem as a side effect that would make it need to be reverted (even temporarily). | 16:31 |
| * SotK mumbles about it being half 5 on Friday evening :) | 16:31 | |
| persia | I'm also wondering if it is worth delaying merge until after a one-time programmatic generation of "legacy-high-priority", "legacy-medium-priority", etc. worklists. | 16:32 |
| SotK | seems pretty sensible to me actually | 16:32 |
| persia | So that people who used the deprecated "Priority" field can capture some of that old information. | 16:32 |
| Zara | yeah, so far there's no logged-out strangeness and all the links go where they should and the detail pages display as they should | 16:33 |
| Zara | which are the things that normally go wrong if a webclient patch is interesting | 16:33 |
| persia | Thihnking about about it: this is a UI patch only: while it hides "Priority", there probably ought be a (ready) follow-up patch to clean up the DB & API to not contain it. | 16:34 |
| persia | That said, this means that the one-time new worklists could happen later, if people like. | 16:34 |
| * persia is uncertain whether now is the right time to merge, or after preparing some of the cleanup, etc. | 16:34 | |
| Zara | happy not merging tonight since Friday. I think effort around this would be better spent making the ui side clearer, though, since I think the numbers are going to confuse people to begin with. | 16:36 |
| persia | My concern is that 1) we don't lose the priority information we have, and 2) people don't use the API to try to set priorities just because they are hidden in the client. | 16:38 |
| persia | I agree that the UI could be improved, but I think the transitional work is more important than the UI improvements at this point: the UI is already comprehensible and sensibly-sized, which is a major step forward from the early revisions. | 16:38 |
| Zara | I see the layout as a first step that's better than not having one, but I think we're still at the stage where we have to explain it to each person individually, and we'll just get myths of 'storyboard doesn't support priority' | 16:39 |
| Zara | so I kinda feel like having something in the api but not the webclient at least prompts someone to ask 'hey, we see there's priority support in the api; any timeline for when that'll be in the ui?', at which point we can explain. | 16:44 |
| Zara | I think people using the api directly are in the minority, and tend to be the people who want to know the tool better | 16:45 |
| Zara | but to begin with, they're likely to do a 'grep -r 'priority'' or somesuch to see how far along the implementation is | 16:45 |
| persia | That'S part of my fear, really. | 16:46 |
| persia | I'd like grep to not cause people to think it might recur, if they don't happen to ask. | 16:47 |
| persia | But you may be right: depends on how hard the UI is to comprehend (I'm hopelessly biased about this, so *any* UI is nigh-perfect for me) | 16:47 |
| Zara | yeah, I don't really know; I think it will need explaining but I'm in 'see what happens' mode at the moment. | 16:49 |
| Zara | for someone without context, the relation between worklists, position in those worklists and 'priority' won't be obvious | 16:49 |
| Zara | even if actually 'priority' was useless before, people will list it as a blocker because they're used to seeing it. | 16:50 |
| Zara | so hopefully this gives us time to try an alternative without panicking people so much they don't even look at it. | 16:53 |
| Zara | (also, hm, discussion of legacy priority has led me to believe most people may try to denote priority by putting things in the low, high, med worklists, and complain it's more convoluted than a button.) | 16:57 |
| persia | I don't understand how this is a trial. | 16:57 |
| persia | Good point. Maybe the legacy priority worklist should be concatenated, with high near the top, and low near the bottom, to make usage more clear. | 16:58 |
| persia | While it may have taken a long time to implement, complex priorities was something discussed at the very first Storyboard sprint, back in 2014. | 17:00 |
| Zara | I don't know what difficulties most of our users are going to have with it yet, as far as I can tell it's all been theoretical. I'd hope we've got it right but I suspect we'll find unexpected things that need to change. | 17:01 |
| Zara | and as far as I know there's no precedent for this sort of thing, which is fun | 17:01 |
| Zara | but also means a lot of conversation to come | 17:01 |
| persia | Fair, although for this sort of thing, I like to jus transition hard, and then explain. Explaining before transition often makes people not bother listening until later, and then being all surprised and defensive. | 17:03 |
| persia | Then again, maybe am too pessimistic. | 17:03 |
| Zara | my thought is that this looks like a hard transition to most, and prompts the more listeny types to have a conversation (and give more information about their workflow so that we can tweak it to work better for them if neccessary). but it's uncharted territory for me. | 17:06 |
| * SotK is in favour of a real hard transition, fwiw | 17:13 | |
| Zara | hm, also thinking, the other feature of a priority button is that it allows one to *assign* priority from a story, rather than just display it. adding stories/tasks to worklists from the story view might be important before we can argue that this covers the functionality of ye olde priority. | 17:17 |
| SotK | yes, good point | 17:18 |
| SotK | persia: +1 on concatenating into one worklist, though maybe worth splitting by project or something? | 17:18 |
| SotK | we should probably create such a worklist for each project that is imported from LP when we migrate too | 17:19 |
| Zara | (I think I'm in favour of hard transitioning if I feel really confident that what we've got covers the bases of the old option, otherwise I fear people will just use something else. right now I'm in the 'this does some things better, some things are worse, overall it's a step in the right direction' camp) | 17:20 |
| Zara | someone says 'how do I assign priority to this task?', I don't want to have to say 'well, click on your dashboard, select the second icon, go down to the worklist, click on it, click 'add task', click 'stories', select the task from the dropdown' | 17:22 |
| SotK | we should do the work to make that workflow easier before we merge imo | 17:22 |
| Zara | that wfm | 17:23 |
| persia | SotK: I like the split-by-project model. | 17:34 |
| persia | I'm uncertain about the importance of making the assign-priority workflow easier before merge, but yes, it would be nice to have some add-to-worklist feature from a story. | 17:35 |
| persia | Maybe some sort of popup menu of worklists to which one has write access, with an "Add" button? That said, I'm less sure how that works with tasks, if we're intending to use the space where legacy priority was displayed for task review links. | 17:36 |
| SotK | an add button like that seems sensible | 17:40 |
| Zara | we'll inch our way toward drag-n-drop. ONE DAY. | 17:55 |
| * Zara heads off for the evening. :P | 17:55 | |
| *** alexismonville has quit IRC | 19:40 | |
| *** alexismonville has joined #storyboard | 19:42 | |
| *** alexismonville has quit IRC | 19:43 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!