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

Improve silence page #1111

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 6, 2015
Merged

Improve silence page #1111

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 6, 2015

Conversation

maddyblue
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@maddyblue maddyblue force-pushed the improve-silence-page branch 2 times, most recently from b21330f to 1ad6bbd Compare June 30, 2015 05:08
@maddyblue
Copy link
Contributor Author

Could you achieve the same goal by setting the user field to "bot"?

@kylebrandt
Copy link
Member

We will likely have multiple bots, and we will probably want to distinguish
between them.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Matt Jibson [email protected]
wrote:

Could you achieve the same goal by setting the user field to "bot"?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1111 (comment).

@maddyblue
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well then each can set their own username. My point is that I'm not completely convinced this solution (an extra isBot boolean) is the best solution for the problem. If we can use an existing field to achieve the same goal, will that work?

@gbrayut
Copy link
Contributor

gbrayut commented Jul 1, 2015

+1 on using an existing field. We can use a naming prefix for bots, and add search with globs if we want filtering

@kylebrandt
Copy link
Member

The main reason I don't like this idea is that is a convention that needs
to be enforced by humans, and as someone programming or querying the API I
have to no reason to think I should be doing anything like that.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Greg Bray [email protected] wrote:

+1 on using an existing field. We can use a naming prefix for bots, and
add search with globs if we want filtering


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1111 (comment).

@gbrayut
Copy link
Contributor

gbrayut commented Jul 1, 2015

We've been down this road before though with isEmail/isPost/isDashboard/isWhatever in rendering alert templates. This method has a lot more flexibility and no additional coding/maintenance. We already have a lot of conventions, and if a human does something wrong we can address that. Or if someone else wants to change how it works they can come up with their own convention.

If you really want an isBot, that should be an attribute on an actual user profile/record, which is something we can address when adding authentication and user management. In my mind it doesn't make much sense to tack it on to the silence item/event.

@maddyblue
Copy link
Contributor Author

Anyone object to merging this now? We can do further improvements in another PR.

@gbrayut
Copy link
Contributor

gbrayut commented Jul 1, 2015

No objections here. I'm sure we'll have more improvements to that page soon.

maddyblue added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 6, 2015
@maddyblue maddyblue merged commit f9e7923 into master Jul 6, 2015
@maddyblue maddyblue deleted the improve-silence-page branch July 6, 2015 18:03
@maddyblue maddyblue restored the improve-silence-page branch July 6, 2015 18:08
@gbrayut gbrayut deleted the improve-silence-page branch August 24, 2015 18:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants