As discussed in IRC, the edit transaction page and the view transaction page don't quite follow the same order/ui. The edit page has username, points, category (in that order) with sections for status, reason, and reference. On the other hand, our view transaction page has points, category, user (in that order) and then sections for status and admin.

So we should make the view transaction page follow the structure of the edit transaction page (which we worked on more recently). In particular, we need to do the following:

a) On the individual view transaction page, change the order of the first three items in the "Details" section so that the order is: User, Points, Category.

b) On the global transaction list page, move the "User" column to the far left. It should be the first column reading left to right.

c) On the view transaction page, create a "Reason" category beneath the "Status" category. As part of this category, include the "Reason" field, the manual description, the auto-generated description, and the "Operation" field.

d) Do you think we should put "Date" and "Moderator" in the "Status" category so that it matches the edit page? Should "Date" be retitled "Transaction date"?

e) Rename "Reference" as "Internal reference". Should we place this in a "Reference" category to match the edit page?

--Ben

Comments

BenK’s picture

Bumping this so I don't lose track of it.

BenK’s picture

Component: Code: userpoints API » Code: userpoints

Hoping to tackle this simple issue in our next pass...

berdir’s picture

Status: Active » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new6.6 KB

Hm. Not so sure about some of that. For example, everything inside Admin is internal or technical information that is not visible to normal users. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to move that to other fieldsets.

There are some other differences too, for example, the linked entity/id does not show up anyway (except as linked reason).

So with the above two things, Reason would only contain reason, which is rather pointless too.

So, here is what I did for now:

a) Changed

b) Changed

c) Not done, see above

d) Renamed Date to Transaction date and moved into status category, above last modified. Makes sense. As it is not together with "Last modified", we could also name it "Creation date", "Created" or something like that. Did not touch Moderator for above reason.

e) Renamed to "Internal reference". Not moved for above reason. It would also be the only item in that category, which looks weird.

Status: Needs review » Needs work

The last submitted patch, change_order_of_items.patch, failed testing.

berdir’s picture

Status: Needs work » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new8.7 KB

Updated the tests.

BenK’s picture

Status: Needs review » Needs work

Hey Berdir,

I like all of the changes you made (as well as the changes you decided not to make). This is looking good.

And I agree with your suggestion that "Transaction date" would be better labeled as "Creation date".

After making that one change, this patch is ready to be committed. I can test again if you like or you could just go ahead and commit since it's a trivial change.

--Ben

berdir’s picture

Status: Needs work » Fixed

Ok, updated and commited.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.