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

Update bug report template #6805

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jul 17, 2020
Merged

Update bug report template #6805

merged 7 commits into from
Jul 17, 2020

Conversation

TomWFox
Copy link
Contributor

@TomWFox TomWFox commented Jul 16, 2020

The aim is to decrease the number of issues being created which shouldn't be - including questions which should go on SO or the forum and vulnerability disclosures.

It's modelled from the Parse Dashboard issue template.

@TomWFox TomWFox requested a review from mtrezza July 16, 2020 20:06
@TomWFox
Copy link
Contributor Author

TomWFox commented Jul 16, 2020

@mtrezza perhaps you would like to take a look?

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 16, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #6805 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6805      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.91%   93.92%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         169      169              
  Lines       12156    12156              
==========================================
+ Hits        11416    11418       +2     
+ Misses        740      738       -2     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/RestWrite.js 93.81% <0.00%> (-0.17%) ⬇️
src/GraphQL/ParseGraphQLServer.js 93.18% <0.00%> (ø)
src/Adapters/Storage/Mongo/MongoStorageAdapter.js 93.54% <0.00%> (+0.66%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3bd5684...d4c2c2f. Read the comment docs.

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member

mtrezza commented Jul 16, 2020

@TomWFox I will take a look

@TomWFox TomWFox requested a review from mtrezza July 16, 2020 22:57
Copy link
Member

@mtrezza mtrezza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@TomWFox TomWFox merged commit ea1ec9b into master Jul 17, 2020
@TomWFox TomWFox deleted the TomWFox-patch-1 branch July 17, 2020 09:47
@mtrezza
Copy link
Member

mtrezza commented Jul 20, 2020

I just noticed that now every new issue has the task info next to it ("4 of 4"):

image

Do we want that? It adds visual clutter to the issue list and it "occupies" the tasks feature. I used the tasks to give people an indication of how far ahead an issue is to being resolved / feature is to being implemented. It also makes a reported issue quite verbose to read, with the 1/3 - 1/4 of the issue text being those intro remarks.

If we need to keep these boxes in the issue, maybe we can at least shorted them, see for example the fastlane issue template:

Screen Shot 2020-07-20 at 17 19 44

vs.

Screen Shot 2020-07-20 at 17 19 34

@TomWFox
Copy link
Contributor Author

TomWFox commented Jul 20, 2020

The task info on the issue list doesn't bother me too much, visually it's not ideal, but functional I don't see the difference - in the past I've never looked at that and seen that half of the tasks are 'complete' and thought I'll come back later - there's not enough context for it to be actually useful to me.

I also don't think the extra content is a big deal - easy to skip past once you've seen a couple issues, but we could definitely hide the first couple of sentences and the tasks could be more concise.

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member

mtrezza commented Jul 20, 2020

there's not enough context for it to be actually useful to me.

True, there's no consensual use of tasks at the moment, so it's difficult to infer anything from it.

we could definitely hide the first couple of sentences and the tasks could be more concise.

Yes, that would help.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants