Open311

Discussion Lists

Discussion of tickets

Back to topic listing

  • From: Ian Bicking

    Subject: Discussion of tickets

    Date: Jun 22, 2009 04:59 PM 

    Something I noticed (or noticed the lack of) in both APIs is any updating to
the issue.  The issue appears, and AFAICT the next thing that happens is
that it is closed.  No follow-ups, no explanations, nada.  Different in this
sense than a normal issue tracker.

-- 
Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org  |
http://topplabs.org/civichacker

    Attachments

    Thread Outline:

  • From: Jeff Hammel

    Subject: Re: Discussion of tickets

    Date: Jun 23, 2009 01:34 PM 

    On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 03:59:03PM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>    Something I noticed (or noticed the lack of) in both APIs is any updating
>    to the issue. �The issue appears, and AFAICT the next thing that happens
>    is that it is closed. �No follow-ups, no explanations, nada. �Different in
>    this sense than a normal issue tracker.

My somewhat wild guess is that they're avoiding thinking about or at least dealing with the idea of workflow.  Because its complicated (okay, not *THAT* complicated).  It does seem like an inevitability in any real-world system.  Yeah, both APIs seem purely for reporting and getting SRs, not "dealing with".

Jeff
 
>    --
>    Ian Bicking �| �[1]http://blog.ianbicking.org �|
>    �[2]http://topplabs.org/civichacker
> 
>    --
>    Archive: [3]http://lists.open311.org/[...]/1245704365219
>    To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
>    [4]discuss@.... Please contact
>    [5]discuss-manager@... for questions.
> 
> References
> 
>    Visible links
>    1. http://blog.ianbicking.org/
>    2. http://topplabs.org/civichacker
>    3. http://lists.open311.org/discuss/archive/2009/06/1245704365219
>    4. mailto:discuss@...
>    5. mailto:discuss-manager@...

    • From: Ian Bicking

      Subject: Re: Discussion of tickets

      Date: Jun 23, 2009 02:16 PM 

      On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Hammel <jhammel@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 03:59:03PM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> >    Something I noticed (or noticed the lack of) in both APIs is any
> updating
> >    to the issue.  The issue appears, and AFAICT the next thing that
> happens
> >    is that it is closed.  No follow-ups, no explanations, nada.
>  Different in
> >    this sense than a normal issue tracker.
>
> My somewhat wild guess is that they're avoiding thinking about or at least
> dealing with the idea of workflow.  Because its complicated (okay, not
> *THAT* complicated).  It does seem like an inevitability in any real-world
> system.  Yeah, both APIs seem purely for reporting and getting SRs, not
> "dealing with".
>

My reading of the DC API is that it probably maps to an underlying system
that was already implemented, and that system may not have any comments.  If
it just turns into work orders that are given to the different workers, then
there's not actually a feedback system where they could add comments anyway
(the workers wouldn't be interacting directly with the system).  Even if the
workers could interact with the system, it probably wouldn't be worth the
overhead.

-- 
Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org  |
http://topplabs.org/civichacker

      Attachments

      • From: Ben Berkowitz

        Subject: Re: Discussion of tickets

        Date: Jun 23, 2009 03:45 PM 

        Great suggestions jeff and ian.

Seeclickfix is not currently building a work flow system as you guys
know. We are looking to connect with existing work flow systems.

I think this would be a great opportunity to open up trac's api(maybe
it already is) and we can develop this standard around connecting scf
to track.

What do you guys say? Can we work together on this?
On Tuesday, June 23, 2009, Ian Bicking <ianbicking@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Hammel <jhammel@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 03:59:03PM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>>    Something I noticed (or noticed the lack of) in both APIs is any updating
>>    to the issue.  The issue appears, and AFAICT the next thing that happens
>>    is that it is closed.  No follow-ups, no explanations, nada.  Different in
>>    this sense than a normal issue tracker.
>
> My somewhat wild guess is that they're avoiding thinking about or at least dealing with the idea of workflow.  Because its complicated (okay, not *THAT* complicated).  It does seem like an inevitability in any real-world system.  Yeah, both APIs seem purely for reporting and getting SRs, not "dealing with".
>
> My reading of the DC API is that it probably maps to an underlying system that was already implemented, and that system may not have any comments.  If it just turns into work orders that are given to the different workers, then there's not actually a feedback system where they could add comments anyway (the workers wouldn't be interacting directly with the system).  Even if the workers could interact with the system, it probably wouldn't be worth the overhead.
>
>
> --
> Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org  |  http://topplabs.org/civichacker
>
>
> --
> Archive: http://lists.open311.org/[…]/1245780987948
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to discuss@....  Please contact discuss-manager@... for questions.
>

-- 
Have you seen my new startup for social good? SeeClickFix
(www.seeclickfix.com) Check it out and report an issue in your
neighborhood. Power to the Community.

        • From: Jeff Hammel

          Subject: Re: Discussion of tickets

          Date: Jun 23, 2009 03:49 PM 

          On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:45:18PM -0400, Ben Berkowitz wrote:
> Great suggestions jeff and ian.
> 
> Seeclickfix is not currently building a work flow system as you guys
> know. We are looking to connect with existing work flow systems.
> 
> I think this would be a great opportunity to open up trac's api(maybe
> it already is) and we can develop this standard around connecting scf
> to track.

Not sure what you mean by open up.  But Trac has pretty good workflow.  Its one real deficiency is the lack of workflow based on ticket type and fields based on ticket type, though the first can be overcome with http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/TypedTicketWorkflowPlugin.  I'm not sure if the latter can be overcome.
 
> What do you guys say? Can we work together on this?

Would be awesome!  I'm still learning the spec, but it seems pretty simple, and I'll probably code some sort of Trac implementation to both APIs (I assume I'll be done with this this week...no promises though!)

Jeff

> On Tuesday, June 23, 2009, Ian Bicking <ianbicking@...> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Hammel <jhammel@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 03:59:03PM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> >>    Something I noticed (or noticed the lack of) in both APIs is any updating
> >>    to the issue.  The issue appears, and AFAICT the next thing that happens
> >>    is that it is closed.  No follow-ups, no explanations, nada.  Different in
> >>    this sense than a normal issue tracker.
> >
> > My somewhat wild guess is that they're avoiding thinking about or at least dealing with the idea of workflow.  Because its complicated (okay, not *THAT* complicated).  It does seem like an inevitability in any real-world system.  Yeah, both APIs seem purely for reporting and getting SRs, not "dealing with".
> >
> > My reading of the DC API is that it probably maps to an underlying system that was already implemented, and that system may not have any comments.  If it just turns into work orders that are given to the different workers, then there's not actually a feedback system where they could add comments anyway (the workers wouldn't be interacting directly with the system).  Even if the workers could interact with the system, it probably wouldn't be worth the overhead.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org  |  http://topplabs.org/civichacker
> >
> >
> > --
> > Archive: http://lists.open311.org/[…]/1245780987948
> > To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to discuss@....  Please contact discuss-manager@... for questions.
> >
> 
> -- 
> Have you seen my new startup for social good? SeeClickFix
> (www.seeclickfix.com) Check it out and report an issue in your
> neighborhood. Power to the Community.
> 
> 
> --
> Archive: http://lists.open311.org/discuss/archive/2009/06/1245786320362
> To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to discuss@....  Please contact discuss-manager@... for questions.

  • From: Ian Bicking

    Subject: Re: Discussion of tickets

    Date: Jun 24, 2009 03:35 PM 

    FYI, while writing up the API for DC 311 I noticed they have a request
record "notes" and a record that I believe may be free form, "resolution".
 There's no public API to add anything to a request, and mostly the requests
are only public if you are the one who submitted the request (during
submission you can get request ID), so there's no way for anyone from the
outside to add any information.  There's a description field for submission,
but it's not clear where that description goes, it might be "notes" or it
might be something else.
As a general note on APIs, there's not
much description of the meaning of the fields.  I've heard some people
say that good REST design starts with documents, not APIs.  So... more
work to be done there.


On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Ian Bicking <ianb@...> wrote:

> Something I noticed (or noticed the lack of) in both APIs is any updating
> to the issue.  The issue appears, and AFAICT the next thing that happens is
> that it is closed.  No follow-ups, no explanations, nada.  Different in this
> sense than a normal issue tracker.
>
> --
> Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org  |
> http://topplabs.org/civichacker
>



-- 
Ian Bicking  |  http://blog.ianbicking.org  |
http://topplabs.org/civichacker

    Attachments

Previous thread Next thread