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

Category logging & reporting improvements #702

Open
JohnGillanders opened this issue Jul 24, 2023 · 13 comments
Open

Category logging & reporting improvements #702

JohnGillanders opened this issue Jul 24, 2023 · 13 comments
Labels

Comments

@JohnGillanders
Copy link

JohnGillanders commented Jul 24, 2023

This change request has three parts:

  1. Allow manual choice of 'Category’ (same list as for offers/requests) when logging a time transfer not linked to a post. I.e. under the 'post' menu, there should be a 'None' option which then allows choice of a Category manually.
  2. Show ‘Category’ as well as ‘Comments’ in the ’Transfers’ report. If the transfer is linked to an offer/request, the report should show the Category of the post, if not linked to an offer/request then it should show the Category manually chosen (if any) during the time transfer.
  3. When logging a time transfer, in the 'post' drop-down, it shows offers of the other person (the one who provided the service). Please also show requests of the current user (the person who received the work) and allow one of those to be chosen instead. Some timebanks mostly work from requests rather than offers, so this would be very helpful.
@JohnGillanders
Copy link
Author

@sseerrggii @markets - some of the New Zealand timebanks want to raise some funds to pay for this development. Are you or someone there able to provide a quote to make these changes? Note I have added a third part to this request (edited the original description). If they have a clear quote, they can turn to their funders and request the money but they need the quote to be able to do that.
Thanks,
John

@sseerrggii
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @JohnGillanders !! Your improvements proposal seems good to me, let me talk with the team to see when it's possible to do it

@JohnGillanders
Copy link
Author

JohnGillanders commented Oct 14, 2023 via email

@JohnGillanders
Copy link
Author

JohnGillanders commented Oct 28, 2023 via email

@sseerrggii
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @JohnGillanders yes, but no one has answered me yet.

@markets
Copy link
Collaborator

markets commented Oct 31, 2023

Hi @JohnGillanders! Sorry my late reply, I was out for some weeks in my parental leave 👶🏼 But now we're back 💪🏼

As @sseerrggii agreed with this development, I think we can start evaluating the proposed changes. Let me make an initial analysis and if I don't see impediments, I'll send you a quote and the schedule estimation to have it in production.

If you can add some screenshots to each point, it will be really helpful to better understand each of 3 requests 👍🏼.

@markets
Copy link
Collaborator

markets commented Oct 31, 2023

@JohnGillanders @sseerrggii I made a quick investigation, here are my thoughts:

  • 1 and 2: both seem quite feasible ✅ I have an idea about the implementation
  • 3: if I understood this well, the idea is to allow transfers where de source and destination are the same account? This seems like a dangerous thing in the system no? For the sake of reference, it was fixed in 2016 in Disable auto payment #231.

@JohnGillanders
Copy link
Author

JohnGillanders commented Nov 1, 2023 via email

@markets
Copy link
Collaborator

markets commented Nov 1, 2023

Ah ok sorry! thanks for the clarification, now I properly understand the request!

To be honest, I have some doubts 🤔 about this change in the system... It changes a bit how the core of the platform works (a user will be able to pay another without offers). I'm not against the change, but I'd like to double-check with @sseerrggii that we want this workflow available for all organizations. At the end, probably this fact "some timebanks mostly work from requests rather than offers" is more common than I imagine.

@sseerrggii
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, for me is fine. You pay services related to offers to the receiver of the transfer but also is pretty common to pay because someone saw your requests and help with them. Now if you have this use case you don't relate this transfer with any post and with this feature we will solve this :)

@markets
Copy link
Collaborator

markets commented Nov 2, 2023

Ok! let's do it 💪🏼

@JohnGillanders We'll start to work on that soon (hopefully this weekend). Regarding the budget, not sure how many hours it will take the whole process (dev + testing + release), but I'd like to propose something similar like you did last time. Let me know if that works for you.

Thanks!

@JohnGillanders
Copy link
Author

JohnGillanders commented Nov 2, 2023 via email

@markets
Copy link
Collaborator

markets commented Nov 2, 2023

ok @JohnGillanders Let's continue this conversation via email, so we can keep this tracker for bugs, requests, ...

I'll send you an estimation of hours/effort for each request so it will be clearer for funders to decide.

Regards,
Marc

@markets markets added the feature label Jan 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants