Owner shown multiple times

[lukasschor]

• Title/Description:

Bug reported by user:

"when I am on the owner page it starts with 2 (the real number) but then the lists keeps growing (adding the second owner again and again every few seconds) This is a pretty bad bug since when I click now on “add owner” it asks me wether I want to change the number of required signatures to up to 6 (altough I only have 2 and are adding a thrid one)"

• Environment (app version, server, browser, wallet used, etc):

Browser: Chrome Safe: 0x70d0c85c1708b5dca0e044074e4a475ec7ec12a2 Wallet: Pillar using WalletConnect

• Steps to reproduce: not known so far

• Expected result: Owner is added and two owners are shown in the settings

• Obtained result: New owner was displayed multiple times and there was a new duplciate every few seconds

• Screenshots:

[fernandomg]

@lukasschor, I left the page for +10' in the Owners section and it remains unchanged.

Is there any extra step or settings to consider? (I'm using Nifty wallet in Chrome, may that affect in some way?)

[leolower]

@lukasschor we'd like to use a basic template with fields we need in order to reproduce and fix most bugs. This can greatly reduce the time required to fix them. What do you think?

The template would look like:

- Title/Description:
- Environment (app version, server, browser, wallet used, etc): 
- Steps to reproduce: 
- Expected result: 
- Obtained result: 
- Screenshots: 

[lukasschor]

@lukasschor we'd like to use a basic template with fields we need in order to reproduce and fix most bugs. This can greatly reduce the time required to fix them. What do you think?

The template would look like:

- Title/Description:
- Environment (app version, server, browser, wallet used, etc): 
- Steps to reproduce: 
- Expected result: 
- Obtained result: 
- Screenshots: 

As you might know, users do not often provide this infromation right away when reporting bugs, and it might take some time to gather this information. So if it is critical bugs I would prefer creating a ticket, even if there is no reliable way to reproduce yet / other details are not know yet.

I am fine to use the template above as long as it doesn't mean that all fields are mandatory to create a ticket. :)

Also, I would merge "expected result" and "obtained result" into "Title/Description", as from experience in most cases these would say Expected: "Interface is loaded" Obtained: "Interface doesn't load" or something trivial like that and wouldn't provide any more insights. But happy to go with your suggestion if you feel strongly about it. 👍

[leolower]

As you might know, users do not often provide this infromation right away when reporting bugs, and it might take some time to gather this information. So if it is critical bugs I would prefer creating a ticket, even if there is no reliable way to reproduce yet / other details are not know yet.

I am fine to use the template above as long as it doesn't mean that all fields are mandatory to create a ticket. :)

Also, I would merge "expected result" and "obtained result" into "Title/Description", as from experience in most cases these would say Expected: "Interface is loaded" Obtained: "Interface doesn't load" or something trivial like that and wouldn't provide any more insights. But happy to go with your suggestion if you feel strongly about it.

Oh I know!. Having this template only signals what info we'd like to have, there is nothing mandatory about it because it is just text :P And I wouldn't block a ticket for not having all of it, of course.

Sometimes people don't even think specifying the environment is useful, or they just don't know we have at least 3 different servers where they can use different versions of the app.

I'm fine with the expected/obtained result, I just copied what our QAs use, but I agree it is a bit redundant.