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

[feature request] Making equipment issue details only visible to staff #140

Open
r-xyz opened this issue Mar 17, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Comments

@r-xyz
Copy link
Contributor

r-xyz commented Mar 17, 2023

Hello,

I would like to propose if it might be possible to have the option to only show details of tools' open issues and issue history to staff and tool responsibles.
In our facility we have a policy to encourage users to report any problem they might find and we would like to avoid a possible detrimental "shame" effect.
Also, for confidentiality, it would be preferred to avoid having the content available to everybody. This also includes attachments (e.g. photos) which might generate issues in case the user inadvertently includes in the picture details which might be confidential.

I hope this might not be too complex to implement as an option.
Thanks in advance.

@rptmat57
Copy link
Contributor

I see two ways to do that:

  1. Having a global setting to show/hide all reported tool issues for regular users (and update the search to look into comments only). Default behavior should be the way it is now (show to everyone). This should be fairly straightforward.
  2. Another option is having a checkbox to allow users to report issues anonymously (similar to safety issues) and a checkbox to only have it show to staff members (similar to comments). This is a slightly more involved and would require also mapping to the safety issue created automatically when the user selects "This problem represents a safety hazard to the facility and should be regarded as urgent. Notify the NanoFab safety officer of this issue".

Also, the issue is currently being sent to any user with a upcoming reservation of the tool, I think this should stay the same regardless of implementation of this feature.

I think both options are valid, and we would likely accept a PR for option 1.
For option 2 we would need to talk about it as it would affect the current way to report issues.

@r-xyz
Copy link
Contributor Author

r-xyz commented Jun 23, 2023

Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for the feedback.
I hope I will have some time to work on it during summer. A couple of questions, if I might ask:

You mention that the issue is currently sent to any user with upcoming reservation.

  1. Does this apply only when the user select to shutdown the tool or the H&S hazard?
  2. I am not sure if it is due to a misconfiguration from our side (I can open a separate bug report if needed.). I recently noticed that no email is sent in our setup after creation of a issue/task, not even to the address set under the tool setting notification email address.
    • I would discard a delivery/spam problem, since there is no record of the emails even on the Email Logs under Detailed administration.
    • Other emails (i.e. reservations confirmation, abuse) are sent correctly.
    • Task update and resolution email are sent only to the user who perform the update, not to the user who created the task nor to the notification email address of the tool.

@rptmat57
Copy link
Contributor

Hi,

  1. No, it is sent whether the tool is selected to be shutdown or not (the email subject is slightly different, one says "tool reservation warning" the other "tool reservation problem" if shutdown is selected)
  2. Double check that you have the new task email template set in Customizations like on the demo site: https://nemo.nist.gov/demo/customization/templates/#new_task_email_id (the new task email and the updates are 2 separate things, one requires a template, the other doesn't).

The updates should probably include thenotification email address, I'll fix that.
About the user who created the task, I am not so sure. The updates are more of an internal/staff process and so I wouldn't necessarily include a "regular" user in it.

@r-xyz
Copy link
Contributor Author

r-xyz commented Jul 4, 2023

Thanks,
# 2 was actually the issue, we were missing the template in-place.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants