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

New guest transfer feature : "conversion" notion is better (IMO) than "transfer" notion + quota remains zero #1221

Closed
Jerome-Herbinet opened this issue Aug 16, 2024 · 9 comments · Fixed by #1228
Labels
1. to develop Accepted and waiting to be taken care of design Related to the design enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@Jerome-Herbinet
Copy link
Member

Jerome-Herbinet commented Aug 16, 2024

When this feature is used, it :

  • removes the user from the “guest” group;
  • removes the user's guest limitations, as he is no longer a guest
  • applies the specified username

Taking these effects into account, I don't think this is a transfer from one account to another, but a conversion of this guest account into a normal account.

The notion of transfer is therefore misleading (because the account is transformed, in other words, not new).

Finally, I've noticed a problem, unless it's deliberate. The quota doesn't change and remains zero; shouldn't the conversion apply the “default” quota to the user after conversion?

@Jerome-Herbinet Jerome-Herbinet added enhancement New feature or request design Related to the design 0. Needs triage Pending approval or rejection. This issue is pending approval. labels Aug 16, 2024
@Jerome-Herbinet
Copy link
Member Author

@Pytal what do you think ?

@Jerome-Herbinet
Copy link
Member Author

@Pytal

In the meantime, a colleague has told me that from a technical point of view it looks like a new user is created, and the old guest is deleted. Can you confirm this?

Nevertheless, I stand by my original request from a UI/UX POV, as I think the notion of conversion is easier to understand, especially as if you enter a username that already exists, you can't continue the process. Also, it would avoid some confusion, for example the fact that folders can be transferred from user settings ("Transfer ownership of a file or folder "). In other words, the transfer notion exists elsewhere and we must not create confusion.

@Pytal
Copy link
Member

Pytal commented Aug 16, 2024

In the meantime, a colleague has told me that from a technical point of view it looks like a new user is created, and the old guest is deleted. Can you confirm this?

Yes, this is correct. Under the hood a new user is created and the guest user data is transferred to it before being deleted.

Overall no strong opinion though, I think we should get @nextcloud/designers input on the naming :)

Finally, I've noticed a problem, unless it's deliberate. The quota doesn't change and remains zero; shouldn't the conversion apply the “default” quota to the user after conversion?

Could you split this off into a separate issue? 🙏

@Jerome-Herbinet
Copy link
Member Author

In the meantime, a colleague has told me that from a technical point of view it looks like a new user is created, and the old guest is deleted. Can you confirm this?

Yes, this is correct. Under the hood a new user is created and the guest user data is transferred to it before being deleted.

Overall no strong opinion though, I think we should get @nextcloud/designers input on the naming :)

Finally, I've noticed a problem, unless it's deliberate. The quota doesn't change and remains zero; shouldn't the conversion apply the “default” quota to the user after conversion?

Could you split this off into a separate issue? 🙏

@Pytal thanks for your answer. Concerning the quota, here is the separate issue : #1226

@jancborchardt
Copy link
Member

Would "change" be even simpler wording? @Jerome-Herbinet could you show where this wording occurs in context and the change you suggest?

@Jerome-Herbinet
Copy link
Member Author

how where this wording occurs in context and the change you suggest?

@jancborchardt check the screenshot below. Also, I wonder if "full" is relevant. Suggestion instead : "regular", because "full" word could make admin think about some extra privileges, which is not the case.

2024-08-19_13-16

@jancborchardt
Copy link
Member

Thanks @Jerome-Herbinet, then I would indeed agree with your suggestion "Convert guest to regular account".

Also the sorting seems off. Destructive actions should always be at the bottom, ideally separated by a divider. Like so:

  • Resend welcome email
  • Convert gues to regular account
  • (Divider)
  • Disable account
  • Disconnect all devices and delete local data
  • Delete account

@Jerome-Herbinet Jerome-Herbinet added 1. to develop Accepted and waiting to be taken care of and removed 0. Needs triage Pending approval or rejection. This issue is pending approval. labels Aug 19, 2024
@Jerome-Herbinet
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks @Jerome-Herbinet, then I would indeed agree with your suggestion "Convert guest to regular account".

Also the sorting seems off. Destructive actions should always be at the bottom, ideally separated by a divider. Like so:

* Resend welcome email

* Convert gues to regular account

* (Divider)

* Disable account

* Disconnect all devices and delete local data

* Delete account

@jancborchardt I'll take care of the wording change in a PR, but I won't change menu's entries' order (I think I don't have the required skills).

@Jerome-Herbinet
Copy link
Member Author

Wording change PR : #1228

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
1. to develop Accepted and waiting to be taken care of design Related to the design enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants