Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Extend green tick delivery confirmation feature to cases where a message has been re-sent #6709

Closed
RichardTaylor opened this issue Dec 12, 2021 · 5 comments
Labels
f:request-creation improvement Improves existing functionality (UI tweaks, refactoring, performance, etc) stale Issues with no activity for 12 months x:uk

Comments

@RichardTaylor
Copy link

Currently the resend "message" on the request page never has a green tick (or other related status) associated with it.

Resends are relatively rare so this would be a low impact feature I think.

Noted after a user contacted WhatDoTheyKnow to report a delivery error after their request had already been successfully resent.

@garethrees garethrees added f:request-creation improvement Improves existing functionality (UI tweaks, refactoring, performance, etc) x:uk labels Dec 13, 2021
@garethrees
Copy link
Member

Yeah this is a bit confusing; the successful resend is reflected on the original outgoing message.

@schlos
Copy link
Contributor

schlos commented Mar 8, 2023

From user perspective, resending a message does not indicate which message was resent (if there are more than one outgoing message - so even if delivery status is appended to original message, user won't be able to know that.

What user will see currently:

Screenshot from 2023-03-08 13-23-59

Expected:

We should be able to add Delivery status to the resend box (even if it's duplicating same information as in status of original outgoing message).

@RichardTaylor
Copy link
Author

RichardTaylor commented Mar 9, 2023

From user perspective, resending a message does not indicate which message was resent

If the text says "Sent request to [public body name] again" then it means the initial message on the thread was re-sent.

If a follow-up outgoing message was re-sent the message reads:

"Sent a follow up to [public body name] again."

It can be ambiguous as to which outgoing message was re-sent (but it's usually clear from context).

Wording could be tweaked to eg. "Sent original request to...", and/or a link to the specific message which has been re-sent could be included in the note indicating there has been a resend (message specific links are available).

@schlos
Copy link
Contributor

schlos commented Mar 9, 2023

Thanks Richard for clarification. I missed that it has different texts for resending follow-up and original request.

I have reworked https://github.com/mysociety/alaveteli/blob/develop/app/views/request/_resent_outgoing_correspondence.html.erb on IPZ and now it shows original message but says it has been re-sent with new date, it's collapsed but user can expand to get more info on message that was re-sent and also delivery info. As Gareth said, delivery will show first and resent info, but it's more complete like this I think and there cannot be any doubts what content was resent:

Screenshot from 2023-03-09 22-48-20

Screenshot from 2023-03-09 22-48-33

Let me know what do you think? Would you like me to create merge request to add this upstream to the main Alaveteli repo?

@HelenWDTK HelenWDTK added the stale Issues with no activity for 12 months label Nov 19, 2024
@HelenWDTK
Copy link
Contributor

This issue has been automatically closed due to a lack of discussion or resolution for over 12 months.
Should we decide to revisit this issue in the future, it can be reopened.

@HelenWDTK HelenWDTK closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Nov 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
f:request-creation improvement Improves existing functionality (UI tweaks, refactoring, performance, etc) stale Issues with no activity for 12 months x:uk
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants