Open burlexpo opened 11 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:
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.
Talked with Scratch - he wants conflict checking on by defaul and a visible switch in Special Events and Ops. Can do.
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'.