I agree but the T2 coordinators were the only people who might need that
and could have been included in the assigned/notified emails directly in
GGUS there is no need to use humans to do that. :)
cheers
alessandra
On 06/12/2011 11:02, John Gordon wrote:
> I was talking about the 'Assign ticket to specific person(s)' field, not Status=Assigned.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alessandra Forti
> Sent: 06 December 2011 10:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Changing tickets to "in progress"
>
> Actually the "assigned" flag is set automatically at the first reply,
> it's the "in progress" that is set by the NGI at this point.
>
> cheers
> alessandra
>
> On 06/12/2011 10:38, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>>> If there has been mission creep and sites now get all updates just
>> by NOTIFY SITE being set then there may indeed be scope to clean up
>> the behaviour.
>>
>> it has always been the case that sites get all the updates just by
>> NOTIFY SITE it's fundamentally an assigned ticket without the flag
>> 'assigned' which only SU can set as you well said.
>>
>> cheers
>> alessandra
>>
>> Look at https://ggus.eu/ws/ticket_info.php?ticket=76608 and you will
>> see a ticket where NOTIFY SITE, assigned and involved are all used
>> (and it is also a TEAM ticket). Interestingly Brunel don't have a
>> helpdesk email in GOCDB so I don't know where the notify address came
>> from. The NGI has used the GridPP-maintained list of people to be
>> contacted for a site so you will see Duncan and Daniela there. John
>> -----Original Message----- From: Testbed Support for GridPP member
>> institutes [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ewan
>> MacMahon Sent: 06 December 2011 00:02 To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Changing tickets to "in progress"
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you are trying to say Alessandra. The fact that sites
>>>> react to the original NOTIFY SITE is a bonus, not a reason for the
>>>> helpdesk to ignore the ticket.
>>>>
>>> I don't wish to put words in Alessandra's mouth, but I think she's
>>> getting at the same issue that I was when I suggested unifying the
>>> assigned to/notified fields. Essentially, that once a site know about
>>> a ticket and is dealing with it, leaving it in the queue on 'new'
>>> tickets for the NGI ticket wranglers to then assign is pointless; it's
>>> work for them and it adds nothing. It's good to have people routing
>>> tickets to the right places, but there's no point in making them do it
>>> to tickets that are already in the right place.
>>>
>>>> Not all tickets are team tickets and not all tickets use NOTIFY
>>>> SITE. We
>>>> need a process that makes sure we don't miss tickets.
>>>>
>>> Indeed, but it would be fine to have the submitter route the ticket, and
>>> only have the NGI folk step in for the tickets where they don't.
>>>
>>> Ewan
|