Open aarontitus opened 11 years ago
From cpw...@gmail.com on February 05, 2013 18:00:24 How should this logic be changed to handle the statuses of multiple phases? (#134 and #139)
Show maximal/'worst' colour/icon?
From cpw...@gmail.com on February 05, 2013 18:01:47 Or go down the road of combining or stacking icons? Probably too complex.
From v...@aarontitus.net on February 05, 2013 19:08:57 Currently, there is only one map, and everyone sees exactly the same thing. In a future version, each organization will have an organization-centric view of the map. For example, Org A signs up for an incident and says, "We do Assessment and Muckouts, but nothing else." Org B says, "We do rebuilding and refurbishing, and nothing else."
Hypothetical Work Order A123 needs to be mucked out. Org A does the assessment and it gets put on the map. Org A logs in, and it appears Red, because it is ready to be claimed and mucked out. However, when Org B logs in, it either doesn't appear, or appears Gray. Org A assigns the work order, completes it, and marks it complete. To Org A, the work order appears green. But now that it is ready for the next phase, it appears as Red on Org B's screen, because it is unclaimed for the next phase, and ready to be rebuilt.
So the answer to the question is: Organization-specific views of the map. Does that help?
This means we may need to change the logic above:
See #21 #14
From cpw...@gmail.com on February 06, 2013 11:23:13 Understood - but what happens when an organisation has multiple specialities, e.g. Org C does assessments, muckouts, rebuilding and refurbishing etc.?
What does Org C see in your example? If only a single icon is shown, I would assume it would be the icon of the maximal status of all relevant phases (eg. if phase 1 is red and phase 2 is green and both are relevant to Org C, show red to Org C).
In the short term, this logic could also be used for the single, one-view map.
From v...@aarontitus.net on February 07, 2013 14:33:45 I am creating a .pptx illustrating how this is to work in practice. It still needs some work, but once it's ready, I'll post it here.
From v...@aarontitus.net on February 27, 2013 16:08:02 Here is the PowerPoint. I distributed this via email earlier. It isn't perfect, but provides a starting point.
Original author: v...@aarontitus.net (December 11, 2012 18:24:01)
After several attempts to write this logic as a code, I realized that it was just easier (if messy) to write the logic as a series of if-then statements for each case, since there were a limited number of cases.
In some cases, changing a status will affect the claimed status, but not always vice-versa. Changing status to some "Closed" statuses should prompt for volunteer hours, while assigning a work order should prompt for the Team Leader's name and phone number.
FIRST: RE-NAME/CREATE A FEW STATUSES
SECOND: SET COLORS/ STATUSES/ AUTO-CLAIMING --Unclaimed--
--Claimed--
If someone Unclaims a claimed work order, and the status is "Open, Assigned," "Rejected, out of scope", "Rejected, low priority" then the status should automatically change to "Open, Unassigned." Display Message "B".
MESSAGE A: "Changing the status requires your organization to claim the work order. This work order has been claimed for your organization." MESSAGE B: "Warning: Unclaiming this work order changed its status to "Open, unassigned."
This is important as organizations are now beginning to clean up work orders.
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/sandy-disaster-recovery/issues/detail?id=97