I have many lists and many editors.

I have many lists and many editors. One editor has sharing permission on maybe 25% of the pages, and I want to let him share the rest.  There's no easy way to see what he's shared on and what he isn't. Am I safe just selecting all lists in List View, and adding him as a share to all? That will be a little illogical, since he's already sharing 25% of them. Am I safe to do this?

Comments

  1. Kirill Maximov (KIR)10 February 2016 at 12:11

    Hello Jim, the answer is yes, you're safe to do it. The person will get notification that they get access to new lists only.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim Leff11 February 2016 at 09:07

    Thanks.

    I did it, and the sharing changed the modification dates for all my lists to "today". So I can no longer see which lists have been worked on most recently.

    There is no reason for a sharing action to affect the modification date of a list.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kirill Maximov (KIR)11 February 2016 at 09:44

    Sorry that this made a problem. Technically, list update timestamp was updated because there was an activity on the list (and changing list sharing information is considered an activity in Checkvist, as well as changing list options).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim Leff11 February 2016 at 09:49

    This is a little bit crazy. Administrative changes like this should not affect update timestamp.

    I can imagine special circumstances where people might want this, but I'm sure it's not expected or desired behavior for most customers, who will naturally expect timestamp to update only for edits to actual list content.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kirill Maximov (KIR)11 February 2016 at 10:21

    I agree with you, this is not expected for most customers. But, you're the first person who noticed this problem and wrote us about it. We might introduce an additional timestamp field which would update only if list items content changes, this makes perfect sense.

    I've added this request to Uservoice: http://checkvist.uservoice.com/forums/2121-general/suggestions/12294255-add-a-real-list-modification-timestamp-which-updat

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jim Leff11 February 2016 at 10:23

    Thanks, Kirill. But if you agree this shouldn't be default behavior, why not remove this behavior rather than introduce the (significant) complexity of a second timestamp?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kirill Maximov (KIR)11 February 2016 at 10:57

    Because we anyway need a timestamp which reflects any change related to the list data or its options or sharing settings, internally. Otherwise cache update mechanism might be broken.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jim Leff11 February 2016 at 10:59

    Ok, so the "second timestamp" you are considering adding would be the only timestamp from the user perspective? If so, that sounds great. If not, the complexity would a problem for us and for you, both!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Any Toggl users here?

Any Toggl users here? I'm putting together an integration so the toggl (Chrome extension) button ( https://github.com/toggl/toggl-button ) is displayed for tasks on a Checkvist list. It's dead simple (a few lines of javascript), but I'm slightly torn on the best way to handle one aspect: whether or not toggl is shown for a particular list. It can't be always-on, as it adds too much clutter for non-projecty lists (who wants a timer button for the carrots on their grocery list?). What I have now is that if any task on a list is tagged #toggl, then all tasks on that list will have the toggl button. A few alternatives I canvassed were: - display toggl buttons only on subtasks of a task tagged with #toggl - display toggl buttons only on focused (hoisted) tasks - find some other way to indicate that all of a list's tasks should have the button, eg. something encoded in the list's name I think what I have now is the most convenient of these (I don't want to hav...
Read more