Iteration 39

We’ve just began work on iteration 39 which runs from February 10th until Feburary 27th.

Work undertaken in this iteration includes:

  • Addressing a number of bugs uncovered in automated and manual testing of the new D7 Channels system including:
    • Missing audiences in taxonomy term lists.
    • Edge case issues with web services.
    • Warnings displayed when channels blocks are not associated with tags.
  • Additional automated test for the channels module.
  • Development of a thorough integration plan for the various elements of the channels systems.
  • Porting elements of the D6 Global Health application to D7.
  • Porting content types, views and blocks from the HR Job Posting application to D7.
  • Addressing a number of bugs uncovered in site migrations including:
    • An issue that forces users to log into sites twice in order to gain appropriate credentials.
    • Issues with a subset of migrated menu items.
    • Issues with a subset of migrated blocks.
    • Issues with slideshows transitioning at frenetic speeds.
    • Missing styles for quotes and highlight blocks.
    • Issues with text wrapping around floated images.
    • Duplicate images in restricted pages.
    • Broken links.
  • Adjustments to mentoring tools.
  • The deployment of scripts and interfaces to provision QA and development sites.
  • Finalization of the Munasa module in D7.
  • The finalization of the /maps module in D7.
  • Populating content for D7 training sites.
  • Installation of the Google Search Appliance BMC connector.


Good and poor feedback

Thank you all for your feedback! All of it is extremely useful, and all of it is receiving immediate attention.

However, there is two kinds of feedback — good feedback, and poor feedback. Here are a few examples of good feedback:

«I have added an announcement to the “collaboration” channel (item id 100011), but it doesn’t seem to have appeared in the block on “”.»
«When I try to add an event using Firefox 3 or Safari on Mac OS X, the time sliders in the seem to not work.»
«I cannot seem to post to the “collaboration” channel, even though I used to be able to in the past.»

These are good because they give us all the necessary information we need to start looking into what is going on. We know what is not working for you, what you were trying to do, and what browser you were using at the time.

The following, however, is what would be classified as “poor feedback:”

«Channels do not work on my page.»

«Block seems to display wrong data on /collaboration/projects/.»

«I tried to post, but got an error.»

These are “poor” because they tell us that there is a problem, but not what the problem is, or how to go about replicating or fixing it. The first example does not tell us on which page the problem occurs, so we can’t replicate it. Unless we can replicate the problem, we cannot tell what the problem is, or even how to fix it. The second example tells us where to look for the problem, but does not explain what exactly is wrong with the data. The third one does not tell us what error message you received, and so we don’t know what exactly went wrong.

When we receive “poor” feedback, it means that we have to get back in touch with you in order to get the necessary data, and that takes extra time (that is not spent fixing the actual problem). When we have other tasks in the queue, it’s easy to give preference to “good” feedbacks and put the “poor” ones on the proverbial “backburner.”

So, keep it coming — it’ll all be addressed, and hopefully all of it fixed — but do keep in mind that the better the feedback, the faster your problem will be solved. 🙂

Blog authors are solely responsible for the content of the blogs listed in the directory. Neither the content of these blogs, nor the links to other web sites, are screened, approved, reviewed or endorsed by McGill University. The text and other material on these blogs are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or information of McGill.