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

Alternative Specs displayed twice on well summary page #1818

Closed
LolandaE opened this issue Apr 27, 2022 · 0 comments
Closed

Alternative Specs displayed twice on well summary page #1818

LolandaE opened this issue Apr 27, 2022 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@LolandaE
Copy link
Contributor

LolandaE commented Apr 27, 2022

Describe the Bug
The alternative specs field is displayed twice on the well summary page.

When was it identified?
March 2021, during testing of the flowing artesian well enhancements.

What are the implications?
Implications and risk is low; however, may cause user confusion as to why there are two fields being displayed for the same information. Looks unprofessional.

DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST:

Remove one of the alternative specs fields from display.
Make sure boolean displayed correctly
TBC - which one should be removed from the form (no significant preference, but does make sense to keep near bottom)

Additional Context:
We want to get rid of the bottom "alternative specs" text because they don't always say the same thing.

WIREFRAME:
image.png

Notes:

  • When testing again on May 26, 2020, the two alternative specs fields had different values (see screen shots above). I'm 99% sure Dan fixed this before he left. See Staging well record WTN 112567 for an example https://testapps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/gwells/well/112567
  • Backlog grooming: Leia indicates usage of field is low, but if it is easy to do, let's get it done.

Additional comments can be found here:
https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/int/jira/browse/WATER-1703

image.png

image.png

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

3 participants