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

Insert links into ID fields in DESKPRO AUTOASN tickets #615

Open
netravnen opened this issue Jan 2, 2020 · 11 comments
Open

Insert links into ID fields in DESKPRO AUTOASN tickets #615

netravnen opened this issue Jan 2, 2020 · 11 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@netravnen
Copy link

@netravnen netravnen commented Jan 2, 2020

Re-open correct place peeringdb/admincom#245)

1. AUTOASN tickets markup

Can I request we add Links to peeringdb.com to ID fields in e.g. AUTOASN ticket created in Deskpro?

2. Facility SUGGEST tickets

We could add a direct link to the front-end editor for the pending object?

Reasoning: I often find it easier and quicker to use the front-end editor to change fields for an object. Rather than use the backend editor under /cp/

image

3. [${_IS_PROD_OR_DEV_INSTANCE}] User ${USERNAME} wishes to request ownership of ${ORGANIZATION_NAME}

User to Organization ownership tickets flagged for manual review.

image


@vegu @grizz ?
Commentary input requested

@netravnen netravnen changed the title Insert links into ID fields in AUTOASN tickets Insert links into ID fields in DESKPRO AUTOASN tickets Jan 2, 2020
@netravnen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@netravnen netravnen commented Jan 2, 2020

Can I request we add Links to peeringdb.com to ID fields in e.g. AUTOASN ticket created in Deskpro?

This suggestion has the potential to be implemented in other tickets as well. Containing aut-nums and PeeringDB ID fields.

@arnoldnipper arnoldnipper self-assigned this Jan 2, 2020
@arnoldnipper arnoldnipper added this to the 1 Decide milestone Jan 2, 2020
@arnoldnipper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@arnoldnipper arnoldnipper commented Jan 2, 2020

This suggestion has the potential to be implemented in other tickets as well. Containing aut-nums and PeeringDB ID fields.

@netravnen, would you mind to provide markups for those cases as well? TIA

@arnoldnipper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@arnoldnipper arnoldnipper commented Jan 2, 2020

@peeringdb/pc, @peeringdb/ac uses both the AC GUI as well as the regular GUI. Hence linking directly to the regular GUI object would be a big benefit

@netravnen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@netravnen netravnen commented Jan 3, 2020

would you mind to provide markups for those cases as well?

👍 #615 (comment)

@mcmanuss8

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@mcmanuss8 mcmanuss8 commented Jan 3, 2020

To clarify, the ask here is anywhere we generate a link in a deskpro ticket to link to both the peeringdb.com public UI and the AC private UI? If so that makes sense to some degree...although I would expect the AC UI to be a superset of the public UI.

Is there a reason we wouldn't want to focus on making the AC UI feature parity with the public UI instead of adding 2 links? If there's good reasons from AC, I support adding both links.

@arnoldnipper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@arnoldnipper arnoldnipper commented Jan 3, 2020

@mcmanuss8, the AC GUI is completely different from the public GUI. In theory, Admins could completely do their work via the AC API, but in practice, both are used as the public GUI is more comfortable. At least for me.

@mcmanuss8

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@mcmanuss8 mcmanuss8 commented Jan 3, 2020

@mcmanuss8, the AC GUI is completely different from the public GUI. In theory, Admins could completely do their work via the AC API, but in practice, both are used as the public GUI is more comfortable. At least for me.

I see - would it make any sense to cut separate issues to make the AC UI more comfortable?

@arnoldnipper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@arnoldnipper arnoldnipper commented Jan 3, 2020

I see - would it make any sense to cut separate issues to make the AC UI more comfortable?

Let's implement first what @netravnen proposed. The AC GUI is well thought-thru as well. But for some tasks (e.g. approving an affiliation request), the public GUI is way faster and more comfortable.

@mcmanuss8

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@mcmanuss8 mcmanuss8 commented Jan 3, 2020

I see - would it make any sense to cut separate issues to make the AC UI more comfortable?

Let's implement first what @netravnen proposed. The AC GUI is well thought-thru as well. But for some tasks (e.g. approving an affiliation request), the public GUI is way faster and more comfortable.

Sounds like a plan. +1

@grizz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@grizz grizz commented Jan 9, 2020

Reasoning: I often find it easier and quicker to use the front-end editor to change fields for an object. Rather than use the backend editor under /cp/

Completely agree, on the very rare times that I need to do something.

+1

@grizz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@grizz grizz commented Jan 24, 2020

btw @netravnen This was a wonderfully clear and well laid out issue, thank you :)

@koalafil koalafil added the In a Quote label Feb 24, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.