Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
There are some conventional issue status in almost issue tracker systems:
New, In Progress, Resolved, Feedback, Closed and Rejected.
New: A new issue to be resolved.
In progress: Someone is working on this issue.
Resolved: After resolving the issue, set the status to Resolved, close the issue after the verification (ex. Project manager).
Feedback: ???
Closed: The final status to every issues.
Rejected: ???
I want to know in what situation should I change the status of an issue into Feedback or Rejected?
I was not able to locate content of much value describing "Feedback." However, I could imagine an issue going into "Feedback" status either at some point before it is resolved, or once it is resolved. Pre-resolution, it could possibly indicate the person assigned to work on the issue is seeking clarification of the issue's description, or possibly the person who reported the issue has some afterthought whether implementation could cause some other aspect of the project to break and is looking for input to support or refute the concern. Post-resolution, "Feedback" may be to request a little bit of extra tuning before closing the issue, or perhaps to suggest the implementation is totally flawed! Generally, I would say think of the "Feedback" status as indicating some form of, well, feedback is going on in either direction between the reporter and the assignee.
In terms of "Rejected," I suppose situations where one would use it include closing a bug that turned out to not actually be a bug. Think of it as a way of closing an issue unresolved.
Resolved: is used when programmer fix issue and issue is going to CodeReview or testing.
Rejected: is used, when tester or code review fails and it's returned to programmer for fix problems.
Invalid: when bug is not valid (missing relevant parts, is not replicable, ...)
Feedback: can be reopened issue (IMHO, but not sure)
Related
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I'm interested in locally removing these two dependencies in the "regr.svm" learner code:
Dependency 1: Cost
Dependency 2: Epsilon
I have tried without success with the trace() function:
trace(LearnerRegrSVM.R, edit = TRUE)
I opened a related issue on Gitgub a few days ago, but I have not received a response.
{mlr3} learners are wrappers around the original implementations and are not editable by the user.
If something is wrong, you are always welcome to submit a PR in the respective GitHub repo and we'll have a look.
IF you want to modify code quickly, you can always fork the repo, make adjustments yourself and use your own fork.
(Asking on Stackoverflow should usually include some code, otherwise people will flag to close the question.)
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Can anyone help me to changing order for pages under unit of each course,please your help will be really appreciate.I tried a lot but fail to get the meta value for each pages.
If I understand your problem well, this plugin may be a solution: https://wordpress.org/plugins/simple-page-ordering/
If you are still having this problem, you are one of many.
The only solution I have found so far is this work-around plugin, I believe it is called "Emanaku's Reordering of Pages in CoursePress Pro 2.0". Here's a link to the WPMUDev topic: https://premium.wpmudev.org/forums/topic/coursepress-plugin-for-reordering-pages
Read the description carefully, you need at least CoursePress version 2. Note - this plugin is probably going to stop working in the future, as it depends on the current structure of CoursePress which is likely to change dramatically.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been asked to design a website for a client as a "side job". I am trying to write up a statement of work for the project. In the past, I have done similar work, and often run into a situation where I believe the work is "done", but the client wants endless tweaks and changes. (As you know, websites are perpetually "under construction").
When you have requirements such as "Design a Home page, design a Contact Us page" how you define a page as "done"?
Don't put anything live, until they accept your work is complete. This should be enough of an incentive for them not to string you along, and allows them to have the quality website they require.
Ask the client to set up a requirements specification for version 1. When you met the requirements contained in this document is your job completed. Everything else belongs to the next version.
In the same situations, I tell my client "you want A, B, C and D. OK, sign here, and we are agreed that the end of application is A-D. Now if you wanted something more in future, it is not a part of our contract, so we'll deal with that in future and of course it has it's own price." This way you make them think before signing and lot's of things become clearer, and lots of needs show up suddenly, but in future they'll either pay more for more needs or won't talk any more :)
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Okay, I am working on an admin panel right now, so I came across stumbling, kind of.
Form: http://pastebin.com/D8Dt6zP5
Processing Page: http://pastebin.com/FpXSziPM
Now, onto the problem, I just used 403 Forbidden header when the expected values weren't found in the $_GET, but, when thought for, it isn't really an action that requires login(not for this, ofcourse a user have to login to view the admin panel in the first place), it's more like an unexpected value input.
So I have gone and made a research, in the brief explanations of each, I elected these headers which might be suitable.
I refer from this, looking out by groups of each status code, this should belong in 4XX codes.
So going deeper, and I elect these two:
400 Bad Request: The request cannot be fulfilled due to bad syntax
417 Expectation Failed: The server cannot meet the requirements of the Expect request-header field
Now, I cannot be really sure which one to use, I have seen 400 Bad Request being used alot, however, whatI get from explanation is that the error is due to an unexistent request rather than an illegal input.
On the other side 417 Expectation Failed seems to just fit for my use, however, I have never seen or experimented this header status before.
As I side note, as of the explanation in Wikipedia for 403, I can see it's extremely wrong for this, like I thought, I should probably be using 401 for the views without login, and 403 for a logged user which doesn't have access to a certain area.
So I really need your opinions, thanks by now.
Regards, TheDeadLike.
I have found my answer; thanks for the interest.
You can see the answer here.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to make it so that a player can ASK [PERSON] ABOUT [TOPIC], TELL [PERSON] ABOUT [TOPIC], or THINK ABOUT [TOPIC] in Inform 7. I started like this for modeling THINK ABOUT [TOPIC]:
A topic is a kind of thing. A topic is either known or unknown. A topic is usually unknown.
Pondering is an action applying to one thing. Understand "ponder [something]" as pondering. Understand "think about [something]" as pondering.
Carry out pondering:
If the noun is a topic, say "[description of noun]" instead.
But then I realized that I'd probably want the same mechanism to be used for thinking about both abstract topics and concrete things. I've also got the problem that unless the topic is a concrete thing that is present in the room, Inform considers it out of scope. I don't know how to solve that. At the same time, I do want most topic to start out as out of scope, but come into scope as they are suggested by previous topics.
In thinking about what I'm trying to accomplish, it seems rather similar to the system used by Emily Short et. al. in Alabaster. The source imports an extension called Threaded Conversation, but I don't see where that comes from.
In short, I need a conversation system which:
allows discussion of both objects and abstract concepts,
allows discussion of things not present,
restricts discussion to things the player is aware of, and
allows new topics to be brought into scope by other topics.
Your best bet at this point probably is to adapt Eric Eve's Conversation Package to your needs; it's found here: http://inform7.com/extensions/Eric%20Eve/Conversation%20Package/index.html.
The system Alabaster uses isn't yet released.
(also, it's pretty awesome to see I7 questions here, but if you have pressing technical questions you're probably better off at the Intfiction forums).