You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When there are settings differences between those stored locally on Cockpit and those backed up on the vehicle (in BlueOS), the current conflict resolution mechanism provides limited information about what is actually different (which is confusing), does not clearly identify what the different options mean (so decisions are unintuitive), and requires confirming each setting individually (which can be rather annoying).
Problem identified by Phil, and agreed with by @vshie and me.
Expected or desired behaviour
A better approach would be to:
Describe more clearly what it means to have a settings conflict
"Your local Cockpit configuration does not match the backup on the connected vehicle. Which values should be used?"
A help icon tooltip or an expandable section could clarify "Your [Cockpit instance / vehicle] has been used with a different [vehicle / Cockpit instance], and the {user} user settings were reconfigured."
If Cockpit has more recent settings then it has been used with a different vehicle, and vice versa
Allow confirming all conflicting settings at once
Provide descriptions/tooltips to explain what each setting is actually used for
Specify which set of settings is newer, and ideally how old they are
Storing a timestamp when they're updated would allow this to be done intuitively
By default, select the newer settings
Provide some form of semantic diff between the options (i.e. what is new, what is removed)
Ideally this would be able to show visual differences for Views and the like, but that's probably excessive
A simpler (but still much better than current) approach would be to just show a diff between the json for that setting (over multiple lines if necessary)
This could potentially skip "hash" rows, and others determined to be unhelpful for the differentiation
Provide reasonable "don't ask me again" options
Users using the "user" options as intended should be able to decide on a personal preference for this and not need to think about it all the time
Prerequisites
I have checked to make sure that a similar request has not already been filed or fixed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ES-Alexander
changed the title
frontend: settings conflict resolution needs more context
frontend: settings conflict resolution is frustrating
Oct 3, 2024
Current behaviour
When there are settings differences between those stored locally on Cockpit and those backed up on the vehicle (in BlueOS), the current conflict resolution mechanism provides limited information about what is actually different (which is confusing), does not clearly identify what the different options mean (so decisions are unintuitive), and requires confirming each setting individually (which can be rather annoying).
Problem identified by Phil, and agreed with by @vshie and me.
Expected or desired behaviour
A better approach would be to:
{user}
user settings were reconfigured."Prerequisites
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: