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

Script Generator: Reformulate how we save and load parameters to make it more user friendly #6492

Closed
6 tasks done
JamesKingWork opened this issue May 11, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed
6 tasks done
Assignees

Comments

@JamesKingWork
Copy link
Contributor

JamesKingWork commented May 11, 2021

As a script generator user, I find the current parameters file workflow a problem. When I click "Generate Script", an sgp (parameters file) is also created. I can currently also generate an sgp file by clicking "Save Parameters". When I click "Save Parameters" this updates the pointer and UI label to the current script generator parameters file, but when I click "Generate Script" the current parameters file pointer is not updated. My workflow expects the current parameters file to be the same as the script I am generating. The load and save parameters file mechanism is more complex than required.

This ticket is to couple the parameters file to the script fully removing the "Save Parameters" and "Save Parameters As" button and renaming the "Load Parameters" button to "Load Script" as these are confusing the workflow. The new workflow will be to click "Generate Script" which produces the two files and updates the current script parameters file.

Acceptance Criteria:

  • The "Save Parameters" and "Save Parameters As" buttons are removed
  • When I press "Generate Script" two files are saved and the current script parameters file asterisk is updated
  • When I press "Generate Script As" I am able to give a name to the files saved and the current script parameters name and asterisk is updated
  • The "Load Parameters" button is renamed to "Load Script"
  • The "Current Parameters File" label is changed to "Current Script"
  • Fix squish and unit tests to work with changes
@KathrynBaker KathrynBaker added this to Proposals in Planning via automation May 20, 2021
@rerpha rerpha moved this from Proposals to Medium in Planning May 20, 2021
@rerpha rerpha added the 5 label May 20, 2021
@KathrynBaker KathrynBaker removed this from Medium in Planning May 27, 2021
@DominicOram DominicOram added the bucket proposals that didn't make into the sprint label Jun 16, 2021
@DominicOram DominicOram added this to the SPRINT_2021_05_27 milestone Jun 16, 2021
@DominicOram DominicOram added this to Bucket in IBEX Project Board Jun 16, 2021
@DominicOram DominicOram removed this from the SPRINT_2021_05_27 milestone Jun 17, 2021
@mihai-stfc mihai-stfc self-assigned this Jun 20, 2021
@mihai-stfc mihai-stfc added in progress and removed bucket proposals that didn't make into the sprint labels Jun 20, 2021
@mihai-stfc mihai-stfc moved this from Bucket to In Progress in IBEX Project Board Jun 20, 2021
@mihai-stfc mihai-stfc added this to the SPRINT_2021_05_27 milestone Jun 20, 2021
@mihai-stfc mihai-stfc moved this from In Progress to Review in IBEX Project Board Jun 22, 2021
@mihai-stfc
Copy link
Contributor

@JamesKingWork JamesKingWork moved this from Review to Ready in IBEX Project Board Jun 28, 2021
@mihai-stfc mihai-stfc added review and removed ready labels Jun 30, 2021
@mihai-stfc mihai-stfc moved this from Ready to Review in IBEX Project Board Jun 30, 2021
IBEX Project Board automation moved this from Review to Review Complete Jun 30, 2021
@JamesKingWork JamesKingWork moved this from Review Complete to Review in IBEX Project Board Jul 19, 2021
@JamesKingWork JamesKingWork moved this from Review to Review Complete in IBEX Project Board Jul 19, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the review label Jul 19, 2021
@JamesKingWork
Copy link
Contributor Author

Didn't mean to move this back, it is complete

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

No branches or pull requests

5 participants