Inline comments redux

[gglynn]

I don't mean to drone on about this, but would the folks at WGM sort out the "comments" issues in JIRA, please?

It's my understanding at this point that a decision has been made to move comments back into the chronological conversation thread of a ticket ("inline comments"), and I applaud this. However, there's nothing in JIRA that reflects this decision, and that concerns me.

There's CHD-359 (http://www.wgmdev.com/jira/browse/CHD-359), which was closed when comments were implemented on a separate tab, but I (and others) think it was closed prematurely because it didn't actually resolve the issue described (which specifically asked for inline comments).

Then there's CHD-347 (http://www.wgmdev.com/jira/browse/CHD-347), which addresses importing comments during migrations from previous versions of Cerberus (which still isn't possible at all right now). This issue is still open, but its title is "Import comments as notes in the migration tools", which is clearly not the tack WGM has decided to take anymore. At the very least, the words "as notes" should be removed from the issue title.

Then there's CHD-592 (http://www.wgmdev.com/jira/browse/CHD-592), which references making inline comments versus separate-tab comments a GUI config option, but I don't really know if this is what is planned any longer, either.

I suggest that WGM create a new JIRA issue that describes the functionality they're actually going to implement with respect to the base implementation of inline comments, so that the user community can vote on it and track its progress through the JIRA issue. I think that more than a few of us in userland would benefit from the creation of this new issue.

I dearly want to upgrade to Cerberus 4 and start recommending Cerberus to my customers again. However, without inline comments--including the ability add a comment to a ticket via e-mail and import comments from previous versions of Cerberus--I cannot do this.

[mfogg]

I've gone ahead and tried to clarify things in the JIRA issues you mentioned.

There's CHD-359 (http://www.wgmdev.com/jira/browse/CHD-359), which was closed when comments were implemented on a separate tab, but I (and others) think it was closed prematurely because it didn't actually resolve the issue described (which specifically asked for inline comments).

I've reopened CHD-359, and changed the title to include the words threaded and inline.

Then there's CHD-347 (http://www.wgmdev.com/jira/browse/CHD-347), which addresses importing comments during migrations from previous versions of Cerberus (which still isn't possible at all right now). This issue is still open, but its title is "Import comments as notes in the migration tools", which is clearly not the tack WGM has decided to take anymore. At the very least, the words "as notes" should be removed from the issue title.

You're right. I've removed the words "as notes" from CHD-347.

Then there's CHD-592 (http://www.wgmdev.com/jira/browse/CHD-592), which references making inline comments versus separate-tab comments a GUI config option, but I don't really know if this is what is planned any longer, either.

Yeah, that isn't quite what is planned at this point. I've gone ahead and linked CHD-592 as a duplicate to CHD-359.

Since I've reopened CHD-359 and edited the title we probably don't need to create another separate issue at this point. Most of the feedback regarding threaded inline comments is in CHD-359 anyway.

Hopefully that clarifies things for everybody.

[gglynn]

Thanks for taking care of that, Mike!

I urge everyone that wants this issue resolved to vote for the issue in WGM's JIRA, here (you'll have to create an account): CHD-359 (http://www.wgmdev.com/jira/browse/CHD-359)

[gglynn]

I'm bumping this because it's been almost a month since we heard from anyone about this.

If there are any lurkers that want inline comments back sooner rather than later, please vote for issue CHD-359 (http://www.wgmdev.com/jira/browse/CHD-359) ASAP.

[DBowsky]

NO!

Comments in their own tab are superior IMHO.

[CWasko]

I know this has been covered ad-infinitum at this point, but all the threads I've read, I can't seem to find a clear definition of what is meant by inline comments.

I started using Cerberus at v4, so I don't have a clear idea of the heritage here. Any chance someone could explain this without using references to old versions?

[dsugita]

I started using Cerberus at v4, so I don't have a clear idea of the heritage here. Any chance someone could explain this without using references to old versions?

Essentially 'inline' comments would be similar to how 'Notes' are now. You would see them under the particular reply in a thread which you would comment on.

[CWasko]

I guess that is where I'm lost. If they are the same as the 'Notes', then how does it differ? Does this just mean that notes could be inserted *anywhere* within the thread - not having to relate to a response/reply from a requester/worker?

[Hildy]

The comments were independent entries for display / time / etc purposes. It was like a whole nother message with no To: or From:, and could be used for interspersing Worker comments into the Customer Thread. The only effective way they differ from Notes is that Notes have to be relevant to a specific message, while you could have a whole series of independent comments back and forth among the workers not tied to a specific message on the ticket.

[dsugita]

The comments from the 3.x version don't really relate 1:1 to Notes. They are just similar to how it was previously. Notes right now can be deleted/removed (say you wanted to put a password or credit card number temporarily), whereas a comment would be permanent to the ticket.

[CWasko]

Thanks for the explanation. I think I have a better understanding now. So, is the intent to move the 'Comments' from the 'Comments' tab to the 'Inline' notes approach? If so, then I would be for that. I find that my workers do not really check the 'Comments' tab. Having the notes interstitial w/ the messages - but not linked to them - would assist in this area.

[bkirkbri]

I'd agree that inline is preferable to a tab -- as long as the comments are visibly marked in a very contrasting way (different color, indent, font, etc).

[gglynn]

Inline comments are essentially e-mails that aren't actually sent to the Requesters, they're just posted to the conversation thread (in chronological order with the actual e-mails) as if they were. In previous versions of Cerberus, we used them for internal ticket status updates (work notes) that our customers don't want or need to see.

As Darren pointed out, 4.x "notes" are intended to be expendable, "comments" are not.

[Hildy]

So, is the intent to move the 'Comments' from the 'Comments' tab to the 'Inline' notes approach?

Absolutely not. (Just to make that clear. ;-) )

The intent is to make a config option, probably on a per-Worker basis, to show comments inline *in addition to* in the Comments tab. That way, the people who want to see them there can (see them there), and the people who don't want to see them inline can not (see them there), also.

[bbillings]

I suspect that per-worker is over-engineering, I think most companies would want an "all or none" as far as the in-line/separate tab option. Reason being, it is a workflow decision, we use it to make internal comments and/or phone conversation notes that we want permanently associated with E-Mail exchanges. Everyone is going to be using in-line here, so everyone would have to set their own settings to fit the workflow (Ick), or an admin would have to do it for them (Double-Ick, myself being the admin).

[gglynn]

I suspect that per-worker is over-engineering, I think most companies would want an "all or none" as far as the in-line/separate tab option. Reason being, it is a workflow decision, we use it to make internal comments and/or phone conversation notes that we want permanently associated with E-Mail exchanges. Everyone is going to be using in-line here, so everyone would have to set their own settings to fit the workflow (Ick), or an admin would have to do it for them (Double-Ick, myself being the admin).

Whatever is done, can it please be done soon?

[jstanden]

Just to add a little extra clarity here:

Comments are permanent part of the conversation and are treated exactly like e-mail received e-mail (except they're generated by workers during normal workflow to log progress). For example, "I sent the customer a license by IM" is a comment that you'd want to become part of the history of the ticket.

Notes are disposable annotations which highlight a specific message. Notes are especially useful when handing off a ticket to someone else, since you can let them know exactly what you need them to do without creating a long history of "Do this, done, do that, done". We use notes at WGM to keep messages expanded that have login information provided. This keeps us from having to dig through the history, and things are kept clean by old messages auto-collapsing (since you usually never need them).

I suspect that per-worker is over-engineering

Agreed!

Whatever is done, can it please be done soon?

Yeah, this is on my short, short list along with comment importing from 3.x, translations and time tracking.