Notice: In order to edit this ticket you need to be either: a Product Owner, The owner or the reporter of the ticket, or, in case of a Task not yet assigned, a team_member"

Task #11308 (new)

Opened 6 years ago

Last modified 6 years ago

RFE: more strongly cause QA submitters to identify themselves

Reported by: mtbcarroll Owned by: jburel
Priority: minor Milestone: Unscheduled
Component: QA Version: n.a.
Keywords: n.a. Cc: omero-team@…
Resources: n.a. Referenced By: n.a.
References: n.a. Remaining Time: n.a.
Sprint: n.a.

Description

Too often we still get QA submissions that are difficult to attribute. For instance, this morning I was trying to figure out what a couple of ND2 files were about, basically just from filename and IP address. The requested files spreadsheet has some recent ND2 file requests and one of those rows references a thread started by somebody who did already upload from a wholly different IP address on that same day, but turns out to have recent professional affiliation with the institution that seems to be connected with the IP address of the mystery upload, so I have e-mailed that person to ask them if it's also theirs.

It would be entirely reasonable and often rather helpful if when submitting QA feedback, at least for file uploads, we could require people to actually identify themselves somehow (e-mail address?).

Separately, for things like Insight crashes, perhaps capturing data like OMERO login name might also be a useful hint.

Change History (4)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by rkferguson

A lot of privacy issues with automatically capturing user data with bug report submissions - see how carefully the big commercial people handle it - like Apple and Google.

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by rleigh

I think that there's a difference between the anonymous submission of diagnostic information and in uploading image (and other) data. For diagnostics (e.g. stack traces from insight/web), this can be completely anonymous (though it's useful to have if we need to ask for more information). For upload of data, it's usually the case that we need to know the context of what exactly is wrong, or else we have no clue what the problem which needs investigating is. Unless it's immediately obvious--e.g. throwing an exception when we try to read it--we do need to have identifying information.

The QA file uploader could require an email address to proceed with file uploads, and/or a comment. A file with no accompanying comment or email address is really annoying. Likewise for insight uploading files for failed imports.

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by pwalczysko

In order to make more probable that we get the contact info also when diagnostic information is being submitted, we could simply encourage the user to submit it - like having a popup in Insight saying "You did not enter a valid e-mail address. A valid e-mail address would help us to contact you back in case additional information is needed . Do you want to submit ?"

comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by jamoore

2 cents: At "minor" priority and in "unscheduled" this is unlikely to get done any time soon. Might be best to make the decision now and either prioritize or close.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets. You may also have a look at Agilo extensions to the ticket.

1.3.13-PRO © 2008-2011 Agilo Software all rights reserved (this page was served in: 0.81174 sec.)

We're Hiring!