Yeah, I wasn't sure if folks would want the labels up higher in LUCENE. It's easy to fix though if the preference is the two forms be mostly the same (with the exception of the "Lucene Fields").
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:11 AM David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Much better Cassandra; thanks! > > BTW I noticed some small differences in field order on the create screen > between Lucene and Solr. Solr now has the Environment field at the very > bottom whereas Lucene has "Lucene Fields" and "Labels" below it. Doesn't > matter I guess. > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:29 AM Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> OK, this is done. >> >> I was rather aggressive about removing fields for the SOLR project that I >> know we don't use, but much less so for the LUCENE project. I did ensure >> that the Environment field is after Description in both projects. >> >> I used a mix of looking up the field description in JIRA, querying to see >> if a field was populated in the JIRA db, and looking up INFRA issues to >> find out why the field might have been added before removing fields I >> didn't know already. I have less familiarity with LUCENE issues, so I took >> a lighter hand, not wanting to ruin individual workflows I'm not fully >> aware of. >> >> As an example, I removed the "Bugzilla ID" field from SOLR screens >> because it contained no data in the db, but kept it for LUCENE because it >> does have historical data. I removed "Bugtraq ID" for both, since neither >> had data there. A "Status Whiteboard" field appeared in the list 3 times >> but doesn't display and I couldn't figure out at all, so I removed all of >> them (and that fieldname appears 4x in the JIRA db, but is only used on one >> single issue system-wide...Oh JIRA & your duplicate fieldnames...). >> >> There's probably more to do to tighten it all up, but I thought that was >> good enough for now and the main goal is accomplished (move Environment >> down). >> >> If I screwed something up, I apologize in advance - let me know and I'll >> try to put it back. Issues looked the same to me before and afterwards (I >> checked several, in both projects), but you never know with JIRA when a >> field is lurking somewhere. >> >> Hope it helps - >> Cassandra >> >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:34 AM Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Sure, David, I'll do it this morning. >>> >>> When I looked at the fields list for the form in JIRA, there are over >>> 100 fields set up to display on that form - there's some other bit of >>> arcane JIRA configuration that defines the fields available for the project >>> - but I'll remove all but the ones I know we use so they don't just appear >>> one day and confuse us all again (in case you're curious, some are related >>> to Bugzilla integration, some are for Hadoop projects, some are duplicates, >>> etc.). >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:47 AM David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Cassandra, can you please try editing the JIRA config to re-order >>>> Environment below Description? I suppose Atlassian chose the current order >>>> because it matches the order it's seen when viewing the issue, which makes >>>> sense but I don't mind sacrificing that -- whatever it takes to diminish >>>> Environment. >>>> >>>> IMO it also is only suitable for a "bug" and not other issue types. >>>> >>>> We also don't use "Sprint"; can you remove that? >>>> >>>> Scope creep.... ok and these Lucene Fields, two checkboxes, New and >>>> Patch Available... I just don't think we really use this but I should raise >>>> this separately. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 2:52 PM Steve Rowe <sar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 to try to fix the form ourselves, thanks Cassandra. I think >>>>> putting Description above Environment will do the trick. (I just created >>>>> an issue and put the description in the environment field…) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Steve >>>>> www.lucidworks.com >>>>> >>>>> > On Jun 8, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I've been debating saying something about this too - I think it >>>>> happened when INFRA added some text to direct users to use the mailing >>>>> list >>>>> or IRC if they really have a support question instead of a bug >>>>> (INFRA-16507). >>>>> > >>>>> > The most basic solution is a simple re-ordering of the form, which >>>>> in JIRA is really easy to do. We could put the environment field near the >>>>> bottom and if someone is paying attention to the form and wants to fill it >>>>> in, fine, but the rest of us can get at the most commonly used/needed >>>>> fields quicker. >>>>> > >>>>> > As I was writing that I thought I'd refresh my memory of where >>>>> screen editing is done in JIRA, and it looks like those of us with >>>>> committer status have access to edit that form. So we can solve this >>>>> quickly, and probably we can do it on our own without asking INFRA. >>>>> > >>>>> > If we come to consensus on either burying or removing the field, I'd >>>>> be happy to be the one that makes the change. >>>>> > >>>>> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 7:24 AM David Smiley < >>>>> david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > Many of us have accidentally added a long-form description of our >>>>> JIRA issues into the Environment field of JIRA instead of the Description. >>>>> I think we can agree this is pretty annoying. It seems to have been >>>>> happening more lately with a change to JIRA that for whatever reason has >>>>> made it more visually tempting to start typing there. I want to arrange >>>>> for some sort of fix with infra. I'm willing to work with them to explore >>>>> what can be done. But what should we propose infra do exactly? I'd like >>>>> to get a sense of that here with our community first. >>>>> > >>>>> > IMO, I don't think a dedicated Environment input field is useful >>>>> when someone could just as easily type anything pertinent into the >>>>> description field of a bug report. Less input fields means a simpler JIRA >>>>> UI -- a good thing IMO. But since it's been used in the past, it may be >>>>> impossible to actually remove it while keeping the text on old issues. >>>>> Nonetheless I'm ambivalent if it were to be outright removed and others >>>>> here want this since I think it's of such low value that data loss >>>>> wouldn't >>>>> bother me. >>>>> > >>>>> > Can it be retained as a purely read-only on display but otherwise >>>>> can't edit? I'd like that. >>>>> > >>>>> > Perhaps the path of least change and thus "safest" path is for it to >>>>> be removed from the "Create Issue" screen, yet retain it on other screens >>>>> for those that are fans of adding/editing it? >>>>> > >>>>> > ~ David >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker >>>>> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker >>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>>> >>> -- > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >
