bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <>
Subject Re: [Apache Bloodhound] #146: Inline editing of objects
Date Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:37:31 GMT
On 27/11/12 16:00, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On 11/23/12, Gary Martin <> wrote:
> [...]
>> Or something like that. So, apart from a clear idea of how we clearly
>> mark fields as edited, are there any other holes in this? It is also
>> worth considering if this fits with the current mechanisms for guarding
>> against conflicts dues to concurrent edits.
> Yes. I notice a gap here (unless I'm missing something ...) , and it
> is related to ticket workflow . Inline edits have to pass through
> workflow . Ideally we could always force `leave` action on in place
> edits but if Modify Ticket section won't be there then what shall we
> do ?

I wouldn't say that changes to the ticket details imply a change of 
ticket status within the workflow so I was hoping to leave this as a 
separate proposal.

However, it does seem worthy of comment as there are a few 
inconsistencies. For example, it would be nice to be able to change the 
"assigned to" user but the ability to do that is dependent on workflow 
too. Meanwhile "reported by" could be considered an in-place edit. A 
similar thing happens with the status and ticket type fields that are 
close together. The attempts to change the workflow related items would 
probably have to either send you to the "Action" control or present you 
with the control somehow.

At this point I really have to see what those with more knowledge of ui 
design will come up with though.


View raw message