Ability to submit issue report separately

[datherton09]

@kepae Feature request: A quick ability to switch the submission form from an incident report to an issue report. Even if this is something that is only available to editors and not the general public, that would be really useful.

Currently, I spend a lot of time filling out the incident report form in full for reports I submit as an issue and not as an incident. Looking at the issue reports, it seems like none of the information I fill out makes it to published form, so it's essentially (seemingly?) wasted effort. But also just from a terminology standpoint, it seems like we need a basic issue report form.

If the information that gets filled out in the incident report form for an issue report does get saved and stored, I can keep doing that, but it'd be handy to have a way to quickly add issue reports without writing about them as if they are incidents (only to have the information seem to disappear).

[kepae]

Thanks @datherton09 -- this is a really helpful writeup and request.

For posterity, all of the data that gets input and edited for a report that ends up as an incident report IS saved -- referring to metadata such as authorship, domain, and body text, etc. (though there might be more that isn't saved -- I have to refresh myself on the submission review and remember what is incident-only)

@clari182 is there a way to implement in the UI an earlier switchover to an issue report?

[clari182]

Maybe one way would be to update the form if the editor chooses "Issue" inside the dropdown.

Do you know the fields that are not visible on an Issue Report?

[datherton09]

@clari182 That would be great! It seems that the only fields visible after issue reports get published on the site are the title, text of the report, report author, and publication date.

[clari182]

@datherton09 @kepae Actually I think all the data filled in the submission is necessary for the issue report. It's not currently visible but I think it should be filled. When you're seeing an issue report like https://incidentdatabase.ai/reports/2974/ and you edit it, all fields are displayed.

Maybe the issue is that we are not displaying all the fields on the report page as we should. We could display the other fields only for editors. What do you think?

[kepae]

That sounds ideal to me. All data about reports should be visible to editors. What data is specifically stored but not presented in the report view?

[datherton09]

@clari182 @kepae Good point! I'm wondering then if in a revised issue report submission form that we only need to change these fields:

• incident date -> remove this because the report's date of publication stands as the date
• alleged deployer -> potentially include something like an "N/A" check box because there may be issue reports that do not discuss someone deploying the tech that ultimately harms someone (as things currently stand, the fields must be filled out in order to submit for ingestion)
• alleged developer -> ditto the inclusion of a check box in case the issue report contends with some sort of issue that transcends any specific developer
• alleged harmed parties -> maybe change this to "Potential risk of harm" or "Potential parties who may be harmed"? Or "identified risk"? Something along those lines? (As issue reports are future-oriented.)

[clari182]

@kepae @datherton09 what we display for editors (and everyone) in reports is the same for incident reports and issue reports and it's the following:

• Report number
• Classifications if any
• Report image
• Title
• URL
• Translation badge (if you're viewing the report in a different language than its original)
• Report text
• Variants if any
• Authors
• Submitters
• Report's history

When an editor is logged in it displays an Edit button which lets you view all the other fields.

Regarding renaming the fields, I think what is happening here is that Incident reports also creates an Incident while Issue Reports don't (correct me if I'm wrong). So that whole section is not really necessary for Issue Reports. Maybe what we need to do instead of renaming is adding those fields alleged developer, alleged deployer and harmed parties as new reports fields only for issue reports. Because right now, they are mandatory but later ignored if it's an Issue Report.

Feel free to open a slack chat to discuss this further so we can work out the details on what needs to be done!