bethlakshmi
commented
10 years ago Oy, what you're asking isn't small, and I am still midway through the act management stuff. Unless you tell me this is high priority, I don't have someone who can take this right now. And if you do tell me it's high priority, then the question becomes - what aren't we doing?
Right now, here's how it works:
- Volunteering for stuff - signing up for any no-payment-needed item - does have conflict checking,
- There is a hidden switch for "can play concurrently" which would less make something an open signup and no conflict checking would be done. This cuts both ways - if you are participating in 1 "don't check" thing and one "do check" thing, then it's OK. No matter what you sign up for first, it's assumed that the "don't check" commitment can be done concurrently in all cases.
- Ticketing - Your ticket purchases show up, but we don't book you for anything when you buy a ticket...
- Conflict checking does NOT apply to teaching commitments - which means it doesn't apply to many things, including any time you're signed up as the "gm" (person running things) for a class, dropin, master class, panel, etc.
2) - yes, I could expose the hidden switch mentioned above pretty easily for both special events and Ops runs. Effort = easy (2-4 hours)
2a) - really? Is that REALLY, REALLY what you want?
I think we should talk about the right steps here.
I'd propose:
A - fix conflict checking for "gms" - if you are signed up to present, you should be forbidden from signing up for other things, or at a minimum the person who causes the double booking should get a warning. This is a big deal, there's a lot of threads here that apply, so if you don't see this a priority, say so and I'll skip.
B - Flesh out what, if anything, you want went someone buys a ticket. Given the vast variety of ticketing options - this could get messy fast.
C - Do #2, no problem.
D - Talk about what you see as the value of 2A. It's a small thing, but I don't want to hear "why isn't conflict checking working???" later on and find out that a huge chunk of our data isn't how you want it.
E - long ago, you wanted a "are you really sure? Y/N" walk through on this - or to change it to an error but do it anyway - Do you still want that? IT's in this backlog somewhere.
1) Are we going to do schedule conflict checking?
2) Is it possible to add in a checkbox to events which, if checked, makes the event "invisible" to the conflict checker.
2a) If it is possible, this checkbox should default to 'checked'.