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

Add link to translation chapter as an alternative to the Rails command #445

Closed
1 task
dvuckovic opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 8 comments · Fixed by #447
Closed
1 task

Add link to translation chapter as an alternative to the Rails command #445

dvuckovic opened this issue Mar 15, 2024 · 8 comments · Fixed by #447
Assignees
Labels
📚documentation📚 next release This tag indicates this issue/PR is blocked by an upcoming release. It shouldn't be solved before.

Comments

@dvuckovic
Copy link
Contributor

dvuckovic commented Mar 15, 2024

Tasks

@dvuckovic dvuckovic added next release This tag indicates this issue/PR is blocked by an upcoming release. It shouldn't be solved before. 📚documentation📚 labels Mar 15, 2024
@mgruner
Copy link
Contributor

mgruner commented Mar 15, 2024

Can we just drop this part from the documentation about adding a translation via rails? This is not needed any more.

@dvuckovic
Copy link
Contributor Author

I guess we could, yes.

But I see something similar for object attribute translation. In the same page, just below, it is explained how to set the translate flag manually on the attribute, but I'm pretty sure you can do this now via the UI too.

@MrGeneration
Copy link
Member

MrGeneration commented Mar 15, 2024

Can we just drop this part from the documentation about adding a translation via rails? This is not needed any more.

No please don't. We still need it for translating manual things that are not available in Upstream. E.g. custom values or custom attributes.

In SaaS this is also regularly used.

@dvuckovic
Copy link
Contributor Author

But with the new feature in place, this will surely not be required 🤔 I mean, it will still work, but is this something we want to continue to advertise?

@MrGeneration
Copy link
Member

But with zammad/zammad#4875 in place, this will surely not be required 🤔 I mean, it will still work, but is this something we want to continue to advertise?

If a customer requests me to add a status, I'll then add it in english for translatability and hardly can request customer to use the feature. Technically I can but it will be a hickhack "y u no add it the way I wanted it".

The documentation does not only help externals, third parties but is also a documentation for internal agents. If we start fragmenting that, this will cause brain drain and bad situations. PO decision in my opinion. I won't be happy if if it's gone I'm very honest here.

@mgruner
Copy link
Contributor

mgruner commented Mar 15, 2024

I disagree here. With the new feature there is no need to create records manually any more, @MrGeneration. No matter if it is in Hosted or on premises. Therefore we should not endorse this workflow any more. That's why I want to have it out of the documentation.

If a customer wants to add a status, they can do this on their own with Zammad 6.3. And if they want to translate that status, they can also do that -- all via the UI. I don't see a need of any action on our side here.

Did I miss something?

@MrGeneration
Copy link
Member

MrGeneration commented Mar 15, 2024

Then I'm wrong I guess. I don't care.
Remove it if you don't need it.

@mgruner
Copy link
Contributor

mgruner commented Mar 15, 2024

It's not about us, and we don't want to do changes that harm other people in the company. But the features "custom states / priorities" and the translation improvements were specifically implemented also to get away from the work on Support side.

So IMHO we should really change the workflows (and thus documentation) here, of course not without educating everyone about it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
📚documentation📚 next release This tag indicates this issue/PR is blocked by an upcoming release. It shouldn't be solved before.
Projects
None yet
3 participants