Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Approval of content #18

Closed
kfklein15 opened this issue Jul 26, 2023 · 9 comments · Fixed by #21
Closed

Approval of content #18

kfklein15 opened this issue Jul 26, 2023 · 9 comments · Fixed by #21
Labels

Comments

@kfklein15
Copy link
Contributor

AS A PD Director
I WANT to be able to approve the final content
SO THAT the content creation process is smoother

Acceptance criteria
Scenario: approval of blocks
GIVEN a new block was created by a PD volunteer
WHEN the person with the "approval" role is happy with it
THEN they can publish the block.

@kfklein15
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think this needs to be discussed in more details and more a/c created, I just added the basic one.

@SallyMcGrath
Copy link
Member

BTW I made this last week

@kfklein15
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks, will look at it next week.

@LaraHuzjan
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for this Sally, just some comments for Karen and you to see:
-good that this process is not on Kanban so there's less confusion
-we still keep the Word document as it's easier to comment and imo is more clear
-the person that makes the content uploads the content (preferably in a week's time)
-can we omit the "draft" part and just have "in review" (once uploaded by the content creator it's already in review) and "ready" (once one of us has reviewed it and if necessary made any changes)

@kfklein15
Copy link
Contributor Author

@SallyMcGrath , let us know if you need anything else from us on this, and if @LaraHuzjan suggestions above make sense.

@SallyMcGrath
Copy link
Member

It's hard to understand what the request is here. This comment has a series of points and refers to a Word document, an upload process, and then there's a final point which may or may not be directed at me.

If you want me to build something for you, please ask for it clearly.

@LaraHuzjan
Copy link
Contributor

@SallyMcGrath
Regarding this page
Comment: can we omit the "draft" part and just have "in review" (once uploaded by the content creator it's already in review) and "ready" (once one of us has reviewed it and if necessary made any changes)

@kfklein15 let me know what you think

@kfklein15 kfklein15 self-assigned this Dec 4, 2023
@kfklein15 kfklein15 assigned LaraHuzjan and unassigned SallyMcGrath Jan 10, 2024
@kfklein15 kfklein15 assigned LaraHuzjan and unassigned LaraHuzjan Jan 17, 2024
@LaraHuzjan LaraHuzjan assigned LaraHuzjan and unassigned LaraHuzjan Jan 18, 2024
@kfklein15
Copy link
Contributor Author

Scenario: remove draft status
GIVEN I am on the Approval of the content board
WHEN I see the status
THEN I can only see "In Review" and "Ready"

Scenario: show in review from uploaded blocks
GIVEN a new block was created via the CMS PD platform
WHEN I am on the Approval of the content board
THEN I can see all blocks in the "In Review" column

Scenario: ready columns
GIVEN a new block was available for review
WHEN I approve the block
THEN it is moved to the "Ready" column

@SallyMcGrath , @LaraHuzjan and I worked on the scenarios for this. Let us know if you have any questions.

@SallyMcGrath
Copy link
Member

SallyMcGrath commented Feb 8, 2024

@kfklein15

This is a bit clunky in the preview branch -- I think possibly because it is in a branch. It's not super configurable and I think not worth writing a pile of JS to override the built in functions. Therefore I have simply hidden the draft column with CSS. This minimally meets the requirements in the stories.

I'm going to merge it and you guys tell me if you want it turned off.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Archived in project
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants