Improve terminology or presentation of groups and their members

Matthew Clark 6 years ago • updated by anonymous 3 years ago 6

See QDET-203. When trigger members are introduced into an exclusion group, their function is not entirely clear. Consider renaming or changing the functionality of "Normal" and "Trigger" members, or provided some additional information on the UI as to what the current group configuration will mean. This could take the form of a dynamic paragraph describing what will happen, eg.

"Operation Lists X and Y will block operation lists Z, A and B. X and Y will also block each other"

I don't think Normal should block if no triggers are configured, this is just confusing and there's no representation of that on the UI.

Personally I think the terms "Blocking" and "Non-blocking" make more sense in the context of "Queue on Blocked".

In reviewing this, I don't think we should lose the behaviour of trigger members, or even necessarily of normal members in an exclusion group blocking each other. There are a number of use cases where this functionality is quite helpful, such as blocking certain regular operations only when a large operation is running. As you said Tony, there is no representation on the UI.

This is a pure terminology issue, terminology like "trigger" is confusing, maybe something like "Blocking"/"Blockable"/"None".

Does "Elevated" member make sense Matthew Clark?

I think the term we mentioned in one of our meetings was "Priority Member". Closer to what it's actually doing.

Migrated to Visual Studio Online.