1kristilabrie
To reproduce:
1. If you don't have any books marked as private, edit and select the "Private book" checkmark then save. Note the unchecked setting only says, "Private book", at the bottom of the Edit Book page.
2. Go back to the Edit Book page and look at the setting again.
Bug: If unchecked, the setting says, "Private book", but if checked, the setting says, "Make a private book (this is a beta feature)". We need to make sure that the setting always notes "this is a beta feature", especially if someone is about to mark a book as private.
NB: I would make it even clearer and note that "this is a beta feature and may have inconsistent behavior" or something similar.
1. If you don't have any books marked as private, edit and select the "Private book" checkmark then save. Note the unchecked setting only says, "Private book", at the bottom of the Edit Book page.
2. Go back to the Edit Book page and look at the setting again.
Bug: If unchecked, the setting says, "Private book", but if checked, the setting says, "Make a private book (this is a beta feature)". We need to make sure that the setting always notes "this is a beta feature", especially if someone is about to mark a book as private.
NB: I would make it even clearer and note that "this is a beta feature and may have inconsistent behavior" or something similar.
2knerd.knitter
On it.
3knerd.knitter
Updated so it always says "this is a beta feature" like it used to. I am open to changing the text more, but I'm not sure how we want to actually change it, so I'm just returning it to its previous version.
4MarthaJeanne
I was rather appalled that that statement had been omitted. I am very glad that it is back.
5lilithcat
>3 knerd.knitter:
Maybe add "may not work as expected"? Or "known to be buggy, use at your own risk"!
Maybe add "may not work as expected"? Or "known to be buggy, use at your own risk"!
6waltzmn
>5 lilithcat:
Given the number of known problems, I personally like "known to be buggy, use at your own risk" -- though I haven't risked using the setting. :-) I just don't catalog my "uniques" (old manuscripts). They are few enough that I won't forget them. :-)
Given the number of known problems, I personally like "known to be buggy, use at your own risk" -- though I haven't risked using the setting. :-) I just don't catalog my "uniques" (old manuscripts). They are few enough that I won't forget them. :-)
7r.orrison
Can it really be called "beta" when bugs aren't fixed and there appears to be no plan for finishing it?
If it is actually going to be treated as a beta feature, can it be perhaps visible only to the logged in members of the beta testing group, so unsuspecting users don't try it thinking it will work the way they expect it to?
If it is actually going to be treated as a beta feature, can it be perhaps visible only to the logged in members of the beta testing group, so unsuspecting users don't try it thinking it will work the way they expect it to?
8Nevov
We have had some indication from Tim in the past, that there was a hope to finish the feature. This was a couple of years back at: https://www.librarything.com/topic/349700#8111890 – one bug got posted (and was fixed) at the time, though the topic petered out. The latest bug is being looked at: https://www.librarything.com/topic/371971 (early days on it I know).
The private collection, as opposed to the private book's tick on/off box, could be tough to report bugs on though, if that can't be accessed deliberately and only appears in unknown/unreplicable circumstances, and understandably many are leery at risking book records becoming messed up by trialling (from hard past experience, for some!). On test books/accounts maybe?
The private collection, as opposed to the private book's tick on/off box, could be tough to report bugs on though, if that can't be accessed deliberately and only appears in unknown/unreplicable circumstances, and understandably many are leery at risking book records becoming messed up by trialling (from hard past experience, for some!). On test books/accounts maybe?
9waltzmn
>8 Nevov: Or if import/export became reliable, or some other workable way to revert one's library to a previous state. That might be the best bet for getting people to test a beta feature: Have a way to undo it if it messes things up.
But I would not, at this time, trust import/export enough to use that as a backup.
But I would not, at this time, trust import/export enough to use that as a backup.
