-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
Optionally add reason when completing action #543
Conversation
ec1904c
to
d49454c
Compare
205598c
to
3bdc53d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems like the text box for the closing remark is placed too far to the left compared to the other elements in the side panel.
I also have a suggestion:
If you have set the switch to completed, and then change your mind such that you don't want to add a closing remark and set the switch back to in-completed, then perhaps the text box can disappear? So, to sum up, if the text box is empty and the switch is changed from complete to in-complete, then the text box should disappear.
3bdc53d
to
cb60939
Compare
b84a735
to
3b16c00
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s). |
3b16c00
to
fe6d8f7
Compare
}) | ||
} | ||
|
||
it('Action can be completed without writing a reason', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Clarify with customer if this is possible?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was possible until yesterday, but now it seems it should be mandatory, so I think I will change it (checking with Andreas first)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Decided in daily standup that we will merge this as it is and fix the change as a new feature if they want to make it mandatory
df089fa
to
ab54038
Compare
@@ -288,6 +365,34 @@ const createEditSeed = () => { | |||
return { seed, existingAction, existingNotes } | |||
} | |||
|
|||
const createCompleteActionSeed = () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Avoid coupling initial state to actual test case. This almost does the same as createEditSeed. It is better to create an evaluation that has actions , k.e. createEvaluationWithSomeActions and pass completeState as optional parameter (if not set randomize as is now) - this can then be used in all testcases, see #586
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point! Fixed now.
ab54038
to
1a2d255
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The EvaluationGQL.ts
file is now an empty file, but it should be deleted
frontend/src/components/ActionTable/ActionTableForOneUserWithApi.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
frontend/src/components/ActionTable/ActionTableForOneUserWithApi.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice refactoring of setup of initial state.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🐌 [world's fastest delivery service] Review started yesterday has arrived! 🐌
Nothing critical, so just take a look if there is something that is worth fixing in the next PR.
@@ -39,8 +52,9 @@ const ActionEditForm = ({ action, connectedQuestion, possibleAssignees, possible | |||
const [dueDate, setDueDate] = useState<Date>(new Date(action.dueDate)) | |||
const [priority, setPriority] = useState<Priority>(action.priority) | |||
const [description, setDescription] = useState<string>(action.description) | |||
const [onHold, setOnHold] = useState<boolean>(action.onHold) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should "onHold" be removed from backend?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess that's something for the team to discuss
Context: Users of BMT have asked for a feature where they can provide a reason when completing an action. After having talked with the customer, we now have the following solution for the frontend. In addition, the team decided to add a new table, called
closingRemarks
, so that we have a way of separating notes and closing remarks in case this is needed in the future. This PR is now using the new end point for closing remarks when saving.Solution in steps:
a) If saving complete-status fails - shows the same error display as if saving any other fields on the action fails (has been moved from top of form to bottom):
b) If saving closingRemark fails - shows a different error in almost the same place:
Comments / Improvements: