#Issue Form Feedback

46 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

narrow ravine

Hi @timid ridge! If you don't mind, I'd like to pass some feedback on the issue form since you made it! I hope you can rectify a few points?

  1. The issue form only allows... well, what it specifies. This means we can't be flexible in our issue when we submit one (extra code examples, response data, additional relevant information etc.). When one is trying not to report an issue but document something (such as https://github.com/discordjs/discord.js/issues/6567), they'd have to submit the form as blank to then edit it later. Is this a trade-off that is acceptable to ensure issues are of some form of quality, or am I wrong and I dunno how to do this? o,o

  2. We can submit issues without specifying any partials now which is great! However, having "No response" isn't the same as "No partials". Is there a way to default this to "No partials" or include this as an option?

  3. The development release format as specified by the placeholder actually opens up my email application o_O https://gyazo.com/6a4bb76e54603072e3d3b7b0f4c6dfbe
    Any chance the placeholder could change to the commit hash so it opens that commit?

timid ridge

default 1. you can always add code blocks to your issue description with markdown as before, drop files in etc.? all the code sample block does is wrap the content into ts cb - unless i'm misunderstanding the issue?
greenTick 2. required and no as option is probably the better response then, yep
greenTick 3. i mean, that is the format dev releases print, isn't it? that opening email is absolutely ridiculous, that SHOULD be reserved to mailto: links as per standard... but yes, definitely switching that to the hash

timid ridge
  1. might be the best i can do
    codeblocking it makes it hard to read, but otherwise it does the same mailto reference in the issue form itself, which i'd like to avoid as well
  1. turns out "NONE" or any variation thereof is a reserved keyword?
ocean cobaltBOT
lofty summit

Submitted it as a review but basically what I think Jiralite was suggesting was to just remove the “discord.js@“ part from the version example and keeping the rest of the version so that we can copy it and install it locally more easily

The tip below should probably also be updated to mention this more clearly

timid ridge

still won't embed, the goal is to have the commit embed

@lofty summit keep the conversation in one place please, this is ridiculous

lofty summit

K

timid ridge

appreciate concerns, but if you type them in discord maybe keep them there until resolved

lofty summit

But wdym embed the commit?

lofty summit
timid ridge

that functionality is completely inhibited by adding the rest to the front

lofty summit
timid ridge

Ah alright I didn’t know about that one, guess you can leave it like that then ¯_(ツ)_/¯

You can resolve the convo

narrow ravine

you can always add code blocks to your issue description with markdown as before, drop files in etc.? all the code sample block does is wrap the content into ts cb - unless i'm misunderstanding the issue?
The thing is, I wanted to add a <details><summary>Response</summary> ... </details> after my code sample to show the output and wouldn't make much sense chronologically to add it beforehand. This is a minor detail, but if you wanted to make a roadmap issue, you're probably not going to need pretty much all of the fields... is this more understandable? o,o

turns out "NONE" or any variation thereof is a reserved keyword?
Wow lol, that sucks. So we can't use "NONE"? I guess an alternative would be "N/A" or to capitalise "No Partials"? Trying to keep it capitalised here to match the capitalisation with the other partial options really.
"Choose X if you do not utilise partials." could maybe be added to the end of the "Check your Client..." sentence

The development release section seems good now!

timid ridge
  1. "No Partials" is what i went with - i don't think that needs to be any more verbose
  1. I think it makes sense to separate the main code sample (which should optimally (!) be "plug in your bot token and be able to reproduce the issue) - which it never is
    responses belong to the description
narrow ravine

Alright, understandable!

opal crescent

This is a minor detail, but if you wanted to make a roadmap issue, you're probably not going to need pretty much all of the fields... is this more understandable? o,o
There should be another issue template for this, I thought someone was working on that actually

timid ridge

roadmap sounds like a feature request?

opal crescent

kinda yeah, it floats between a feature request and a bug report sometimes

narrow ravine

Also, isn't it "code sample" and not "codesample"?

timid ridge

woop, was about to push that when merge, guess it's staying at Codesample nkoYikes

narrow ravine

Rip

Just had a though of including a TypeScript optional version too shrugs

lofty summit

I only thought of this now but wouldn't it be better not to have a preset title? I've seen quite a few issues with just "Bug: " in the title because GitHub doesn't alert people that the title is missing + the labels already indicate whether it's a bug or a request

lofty summit

for some reason this thread is set to auto archive after 1 hour but @timid ridge @narrow ravine what do you think of this ^^

lofty summit
timid ridge

don't really mind either way, archiving after 1 hour is a way to "close" it but still letting it be re-opened by everyone
there is currently no way to archive a thread for mods without locking it

lofty summit

yeah ik, just wanted this to be brought back for a bit

I think it would be worth removing the title, and we could fix the "codesample" in the same pr

timid ridge

sure

narrow ravine
lofty summit

oooh that

does ts version usually impact issues though?

but most issues don't require TS and that would mean that field would go on every bug report, even with the "No response" text (which I don't think you can avoid)

timid ridge

could be a note in the node version description, wouldn't dedicate a field to it

lofty summit

yeah that could work

also could my suggestion in #archive-library-discussion be bundled in the same PR since they're both chores or would it be a separate one

timid ridge

completely different scope, should be separate

lofty summit

thumbs

ocean cobaltBOT
narrow ravine

All I ask is that you stylise "TypeScript" as such and not "Typescript" (':