bradystroud
commented
1 year ago @BrookJeynes @danielmackay
Can you look at this? I believe its related to your recent changes 🙂
Open tiagov8 opened 1 year ago
bradystroud
commented
1 year ago @BrookJeynes @danielmackay
Can you look at this? I believe its related to your recent changes 🙂
danielmackay
commented
1 year ago CC: @bradystroud @BrookJeynes
Hi @tiagov8,
danielmackay
commented
1 year ago Also, there are 114 archived rules that DO belong to a category. I believe it is valuable to keep the category information and provides a nice grouping on the page. My preference is for option B.
tiagov8
commented
1 year ago Hi @danielmackay
I'm not sure if this issue is recent or long standing. I believe it's been there forever though.
I see your point on having the rules organized by category. Although it is a nice to have, I think the effort to have it is not worth the while. FYI - I am currently strong for A
Maintenance problems:
danielmackay
commented
1 year ago CC: @BrookJeynes
Hi @tiagov8,
Personally I think the archived page has value in being grouped by categories. Otherwise, it will turn into a visual mess if we don't have some way to organize.
My (strong) preference would be to update the orphaned rules page so that it also includes archived rules. That way we have visibility and can categorize the archived rules over time (great project for an intern!)
Additionally, it may also be a good idea to hide the link to orphaned rules, so that we don't expose our dirty laundry to the world. 😉
FYI - this is the current process for where archived/orphaned rules live:
flowchart TB
Rule --> A;
A{{Does the rule have a category?}} --> | No|B;
A --> |Yes| C
B{{Is rule archived?}} --> |No|D
B --> |Yes|E
D(Show on the orpahed page)
E(E - ???)
C{{Is the category archived?}} --> |No|F
C --> |Yes|G
F{{Is the rule archived?}} --> |No|H
F --> |Yes|I
G{{Is the rule archived?}} --> |No|J
G --> |Yes|I
H(Show on main rules page)
I(Show the rule on the archive page)
J(Show the rule on the archived category page)Hi @danielmackay ,
My (strong) preference would be to update the orphaned rules page so that it also includes archived rules
I disagree with this one... archived and orphaned are 2 very distinct concepts and I would keep them separated
it may also be a good idea to hide the link to orphaned rules, so that we don't expose our dirty laundry to the world. 😉
+1 This list should serve internally to always try keeping it to 0
I agree it's great to have some sort of organization in archived rules... my 1st thought was just that is not worthwhile in terms of maintenance.
I'm still concerned about the issues mentioned in my previous comments...revisiting them I think I have potentially great solutions (no idea if feasible though):
IMPORTANT - We don't want archived rules mixed up with live ones in a live category. Ordering is important and that would make things really confusing to maintain...
Idea 💡 Could we have a second list type in a category .md file?
E.g.:
---
type: category
title: Rules to Better Azure
guid: f816a7f4-473a-4cff-ae39-50f414641409
uri: rules-to-better-azure
index:
- choose-azure-services
- learn-azure
- azure-certifications-and-associated-exams
archived:
- the-9-important-parts-of-azure
- cloud-architect
- azure-architecture-center... this way part of the process of archiving a rule would be to move it from "index:" to the second list "archived:"
If we can implement point 1, then we can ditch "Archived categories". As long as a category doesn't have anything under "index" they won't show in the homepage.
It would also be quite simple to archive a whole category, by just changing the list type
I dislike how inconsistent these 2 views are: https://ssw.com.au/rules and https://ssw.com.au/rules/archived Mostly because I don't have a way to see ALL "Archived Rules to Better XXX"... which is what I expected from the links in the image below... but if I click any category it will show me live rules... bad UX
❌ Figure: I am on archived view, so I expect to see archived rules, but I am taken to live ones
Ideally I would make the 2 views consistent, and users would have access to a link of archived rules inside 1 category. E.g.:
https://ssw.com.au/rules/archived/rules-to-better-crm/ OR
https://ssw.com.au/rules/rules-to-better-crm/archived
Implementing point 3 would mean we have a new breadcrumb on archived rules, which would also show which category it belongs to
❌ Figure: Currently when looking at an archived rule, I can't tell which category it belongs to
The point above reminds me of https://github.com/SSWConsulting/SSW.Rules/issues/392. Can you ask the Product Owner to prioritize this?
Please let me know if any of my points is unclear ;)
bradystroud
commented
1 year ago @Aibono1225 This issue is really long and I dont recall the state of it...
Once you are done with #1107 please try understand the problem and lets get it fixed 🛠️
Cc: @adamcogan @BrookJeynes
Hi @bradystroud
Describe the Bug
I just noticed that the /Archived page is divided by category This means it only shows the archived rules that are still on a category list...
However... since forever I've been removing the archived rules from the categories (e.g. https://github.com/SSWConsulting/SSW.Rules.Content/pull/4896) The reason is to keep the category pages clean and easy to organize, order, etc
All these uncategorized archived rules are not being shown in the /Archived page
Expected Behavior
ALL archived rules should be on https://ssw.com.au/rules/archived/
I see 2 approaches:
A. Make the /Archived page a big long list with ALL rules (no categories/sections) B. Find ALL the uncategorized archived rules and add them back to a category
I tend to prefer A since it's easier to implement. From my perspective these rules are NOT relevant, so there is no reason to put effort in making them organized by categories.
Tasks
Thanks!