I don't personally have much insight into the "board" functionality, because I've never used boards in any setup other then as a simple table, and none of the workflows that involve moving small pieces of paper around make sense to me.

I think a tooltip would clear up some of the confusion around the numbers and what they mean. However, I think the issue described here is less about how confusing it is, and more about how the UX expectation is typically centered around count rather than points. For example, which has the denominator, turns the UI red, etc. So, a good idea! I just think it's separate. :)

By "tooltip" do you mean something that activates when hovering with a mouse?

In T15100#5480, @avivey wrote:

@MBinder_WMF - how much of this will be solved if we just add a tooltip to the [ X | Y / Z ] header?

@MBinder_WMF - how much of this will be solved if we just add a tooltip to the [ X | Y / Z ] header?

Hi @dcog thank you again for the confirmation Dialog. It saves my ass so much times.

I'm quite sure that:

OK the thing is:

I don't know why but, in my local installation, I'm able to set the filter to "Require" and then see a Task that does NOT have this flag enabled. I don't know if my computer is fucked up or something.

Hi @Cigaryno I updated the Task description to attach a proof of concept that maybe can be interesting to expand your already-very-useful confirmation dialog

In T15192#5083, @Cigaryno wrote:

I support Proposal 1 as Proposal 2 seems to be ridiculous for me.

I support Proposal 1 as Proposal 2 seems to be ridiculous for me.

Interesting. It's still unclear to me how to filter by "undefined". That would be still a partial success in my brain.

In T15177#4121, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

But, it cannot just filter by "0" for false: it does not get any result. This probably means that true is saved as "1" and false is saved as NULL.

I will retry later searching by NULL.

For this specific case, I think it's only possible to use the native confirm() stuff to break the onblur beforeunload event. I don't 100% bet on this but I'm quite sure.

Should the confirmation dialog appear from the website or the beowser?

In T15101#3866, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

One thing that could be done right now is:

Create a new Herald rule (Global, Maniphest Tasks) that, if the Assignee does not exist, it runs an Action "Add comment", with this content:

IMPORTANT: Please set the Assignee! Or a kitten will die RIGHT NOW!

You can also add a new Tag like #task-without-assignee so to highlight the issue. And you can automatically remove that tag with another Herald rule.

I've honestly tried to work on this and I discovered that it's not that obvious:

@MBinder_WMF: Also, under the hood you're saying that, since Wikimedia have multiple teams (multiple Tags) it would be nice to allow to change Task Points without interfering each other,

I've shared two proposals, that are actually requests for comments. I would be glad if some people could give a look and share a comment.

Thanks for the suggestion. Default-to-1 has been mentioned before, and it's not feasible because of teams that need to cross-tag, where some teams use Story Points and some don't (thus, 1 point means something to one team but another thing to another). It's also common for 2 teams to use story points but have different meanings, where 1 point is a totally different scale depending on context.

Having said that, in the meanwhile, as workaround, probably you could just - in few clicks - add "1" as Point in each Task. Then, use the Point Limit just as a "Count Limit" logically. If you would go for this approach, it would be great for you, because then you could ask the Wikimedia Foundation to, simply, assume 1 Task = 1 point by default, and I think that would not be a problem for anyone there. I say this since I want to suggest something quickly feasible for you, without waiting to reach consensus for a breaking change on everyone else in the Phorge world (which in any case maybe deserves a discussion).

I honestly think that adding a new feature called "Count Limit" on Columns would be useful for you, so that you can use Points Limit on Milestones; and Count Limit on Columns (and ignore Point Limit on Columns).

I like your assumption of good faith! I'm a little more cynical about the thoughtfulness of Phab development, and the thoroughness of features deployed. I'll try to follow your example. :)

I noticed that, if you click on whatever other link while you are editing something, the Dialog is not show, and you just can lose your work.

Thank you @dcog for this Dialog confirmation that saves my day.

I don't think the hundreds of installations that use Phorge would want to abandon the way they do their thing so drastically. That is why I suggest to think about something that helps both them and you.

Thanks for your help! Much appreciated that the attention on this is being raised. :)

So, if I have understood correctly,

Hi! Thanks for following up on this. :)

I've proposed a fix for the regression here:

It's been suggested that simply defaulting all tasks to 1 point solves this issue. However, that raises other issues (for instance, some teams may already be using the Story Points field for actual story-pointing).

By the way I have not understood if you are aware of this situation (I was not):

@MBinder_WMF Does it still describes your goals, or have I distorted it too much?

@valerio.bozzolan Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the late response. I must admit that i forgot how we eventually fixed our issue, i only recall it was more about "avoid the issue" and less about "fix the issue". I also completely forgot about this Maniphest. Hence, it is OK for me that it is closed by now. sorry for not taking care about this earlier.

If you are really really really interested in hard-blocking Task creation from custom rules using Herald, it should be probably developed a new Herald Action to support the "block Task creation" if something happens. But I honestly cannot implement this feature, so at the moment I hope the "auto-comment" is enough for you.