-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Upload wizard: Remove "Please wait" if possible and do the task in background #4704
Comments
AFAIK this is to check certain things that would impact the ability to upload at all (or the user's choice to upload), e.g. duplicate images and dark images. It may be possible to handle this in the background, but in that case the user would have started typing their caption and desc, only to be told that this image is a duplicate of one that already exists? |
Thanks for the explanation! How about for the second/third/etc pictures? :-) Actually, I often have 20 pictures of the same thing under various angles, and just use the same caption for all of them. In that context, I would like to be able to press Next/Next/Next/... very quickly after entering a caption only for the first picture and pressing "Copy to subsequent media". So, ideally the darkness/duplicates/etc detections should all be queued and performed as soon as possible, which means that for instance all 20 pictures might have been processed already by the time I finish writing the caption. |
I agree, that would be the ideal way to handle it. :) |
@nicolas-raoul I would like to work on this :) |
Currently, the checks are performed only when the user clicks on the next button, which means that the user gets to know that image is a duplicate (or too dark or downloaded from internet, etc) only after typing the caption and desc (since the next button is disabled without the caption) |
I think the ideal flow could be:
What are your thoughts on this @nicolas-raoul @misaochan |
@nicolas-raoul I have worked on this issue, and after a lot of changes to the original logic, I could make the app calculate the quality of the images in the background and show any problems as soon as the images are loaded [Screencast]. Could you please confirm that this behaviour is what this issue aims for, so that I could proceed with the minor changes left to be implemented or any changes which might be required :) |
@nicolas-raoul @misaochan Since there was no response from either of you, I took the liberty to solve this issue in the best possible way I could think of, hope that is not a problem :) Could you please take a look at the above PR? |
@nicolas-raoul @sivaraam, sorry for pinging again, but there has been no reply/comment on my questions and changes for the past month, so am just confirming if this enhancement is still required :( |
Hi @ShashwatKedia ! Apologies about the delay in response. This would indeed be a worthy enhancement for the app. Thank you for taking the time to work on and improve the user experience of this flow! 🙂 I took a look at the screencast and the flow looks neat. It seems you've also handled the duplicate file detection that should be done after the user enters information which is good. I'll try to take a look at your PR soon. |
Sorry for the late response, @ShashwatKedia ! I agree that the new flow is better. :) |
…5570) * Initial changes to the flow, merged conflicts * Major changes to flow and logic * Final major changes to the flow and merged conflicts * Minor changes to thumbnail flow and merge conflicts * Fixed ImageProcessingServiceTest * Removed unnecessary file * Some code cleanup and fixed UploadRepositoryUnitTest * Minor javadoc changes and null checks * Fixed UMDFragmentUnitTest * Fixed and added new tests in UploadMediaPresenterTest * Optimised code for no connection cases and minor code cleanup * Minor bug fix * Fixed minor bug * Fixed a failing unit test * Removed values-yue-hant * Update UploadRepository.java --------- Co-authored-by: Nicolas Raoul <nicolas.raoul@gmail.com>
Making the user wait is never great.
Is this wait really indispensible?
Couldn't we perform the same tasks in the background?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: