User story:
As a group member, I would like to be able to create and edit place statuses to be able to filter the place gallery view page and describe places on the place page
Description:
Possibility to edit place cooperation statuses to describe places in more detail and filter places. From my own experience, I know that some places can work with a group in other terms than the default ones which are already in Karrot.
Objectives:
Greater ability to organize a group by adjusting place cooperation statuses to the needs of the group
Greater self-organization of a group members through the ability to filter by more place statuses
Possible acceptance criteria:
Addition of āPlace statusesā tab to group settings
Giving the possibility to edit the places statuses in the terms of:
Create/edit name of status
Standard names - app translations
Individual, not translated name created by the group
Activity/archive Settings
Color change
Visibility on map
Possibility to set new place statuses in individual place settings
Redirecting via the āManage statusesā button to the āPlace statusesā tab in group settings - case as āManage typesā
Possibility to filter places by new place statuses
Mockups:
pt. 1, 2. - place statuses in group settings
Potential use:
(in other places that are not the subject of this user story):
In group statistics
In activities filters
Additional info:
Probably the logic behind displaying/availability of places with a given cooperation status is more complicated in backend than I think. Itās very possible that point 2.4 is not so simple to fulfill. Perhaps a hardcode addition of an additional type of status (if any group has such a need) would also do all the conditions without ability to set them by a group members.
Usage examples:
Foodsharing Warszawa* cooperates with places that have regular pickups, but also with those where activity is added only when the owner of the place give us with information about the pickup. Usage example - dividing āCo-operatingā to āRegular co-operationā and āOccasional co-operationā.
Foodsharing Warszawa* has special place for āone-time pickupsā, which are marked as āCo-operatingā, even though each collection is de facto a separate collection place. Application example - new status āOne-time pickupsā.
Foodsharing Warszawa* during negotiations with the new point conducts several test pickups. This can be considered by a different place status, something between āNegociatingā and āCo-operatingā. Usage example - new status āTrail co-operationā.
*Even though I am a member of Foodsharing Warszawa, I am not responsible for expressing their needs. The above examples are only intended to justify that the feature may also be useful for other groups.
We selected this topic in our selection process yesterday, so work will begin!
Itās one I personally wanted, as when supporting groups to setup for the first time, itās quite confusing, especially when they are not foodsaving groupsā¦ āCo-operatingā makes no sense outside of that kind of context.
This could lead to having different āgroup templatesā when starting a group, but for now I think allowing them to be customized is a good step.
Currently, you arenāt allowed to create activities for certain statuses, but Iām thinking to remove this restriction.
Reason: there are other activity types now, and even if you arenāt co-operating yet, you might want to organise a meeting about it (or anything else).
The other option would be to make it an option in the place status (āAllow activitiesā ā yes/no), but Iām not sure there is really much value to thatā¦
There are a few other things in the code that check the place status that I will encounter, so a few more things might crop up like thatā¦
PRs are open! Quite a lot working now, still quite a bit to do, but getting much much closer!
One decision to make: what happens to the places if you archive a place statusā¦
automatically archive all the places with that status
optionally (checkbox) archive all the places with that status
allow to switch them all to another status whilst archiving
do nothing to the places
ā¦
has the follow-up question of how to show places with an archived status (think carefully, as itās not the place that is archived, but the place statusā¦).
Iām close to being able to merge this but this question is still outstandingā¦ and Iām not sure the best approach, would be happy for input!
The mega option would be that when archiving a place status, you have a choice to either archive the places too, or convert them all to another statusā¦ although Iād prefer if there is a simpler way that will work for now.
Funny, it seems itās mandatory to have a status. Otherwise Iād say, just delete the status.
Didnāt know our places in the Karrot group (General, Funding, Development etc.) are all cooperating Now I see even more why this change is needed!
I donāt see why youād want to archive the places too, cause itās the status type you want to get rid of (is āarchiveā even the right term, why not delete?). Can you define a default status type that comes first in the list and that all places get when not set differently? Or allow to have no status (although that might discourage groups to care about their data)
Not having a status would kind of be like having a status called āno statusā, so in practise itās not very different.
yes itās actually the last part of karrot that is hardcoded to be food-saving specificā¦ so itās a milestone in the generalization topic.
it wasnāt clear to me if you archive a place status, whether people would expect to still see those places visible (and you wouldnāt be able to filter for that status, as itās archived), so it seems an odd situation to end up in (a place that you are still using, with a status that has been archived).
and it might be people are meaning to sort of make the status and all the places with that status just get archived awayā¦ I donāt know what makes sense to people, hence the discussion.
itās a good question and worth asking. I wondered many times before. it allows an āundoā (restore), which a lot of software has for many things now, and sometimes users expect that. from a practical/technical perspective we would probably never actually delete it, as itās referenced in the history, and we donāt want to delete history too when you delete something, so the question becomes whether it should be possible to un-archive/un-delete it or not.
I think this is a good idea.
Still have the open question to decide what to do with the places when archiving statusesā¦ I added it to the agenda for the call tomorrow.
Right now I can imagine:
implement the default idea, and include a message to say āany places with this status will be set to DEFAULTā
when archiving, have an option which allows: āset any places of this status to OPTIONā
(and thatās omitting the option to archive places themselves)
This is merged now! And currently live on https://dev.karrot.world, happy if anybody wants to try it out - to be deployed to prod at some point in the not too distant futureā¦
Now I see even more why this change is needed!
(although that might discourage groups to care about their data)
itās actually the last part of karrot that is hardcoded to be food-saving specificā¦ so itās a milestone in the generalization topic.
