►
From YouTube: CI UX recommendations for Merge Requests part 2
A
A
A
I
got
my
label
days
only
so
the
idea
I
have
moving
forward
with
trying
issues
is
you
know
we
apply
the
priority
and
severity
labels
and
based
on
that
link
that
I
put
in
here,
and
this
is
somewhere
linked
in
our
documentation.
Is
you
know,
based
on
these
requirements,
we
can
add
a
severe
label
going
forward.
I
would
like
to
refrain
for
now
to
apply
priority
labels
as
well
as
this
indicates.
You
know
like
how
high
of
a
priority
this
is
or
how
soon
it
should
be
done.
A
We
can
do
that,
but
perhaps
that
is
better
applied
together
with
product
management
rather
than
alone.
While
severity
is
more
of
like
a
more
of
an
objective
thing
directly,
regardless
of
the
scenario
like
hey,
does
this
block
users?
You
know
cam
users
still,
you
know
continue,
that
is
it.
Is
it
more
cosmetic
issue?
So
when
we
look
at
this
one,
it
is
a
little
bit
in
between
it's
between
severity.
Three
and
a
severity
for
I
would
say:
imma
see
it's
the
workaround.
A
Let
me
see
so,
let's
go
through
this
one
and
we
go
to
the
merge
request,
widget,
and
we
have
these
these
things
here.
When
you
click
on
them,
you
will
see
which
jobs
are
inside
of
that,
however,
now
we
will
make
it
small
so
like
an
item
overall
view,
make
it
too
small.
But
let's,
let's
say
for
this.
B
A
Yeah
in
in
this
case,
if
this
mini
pipeline
grafts,
these
are
the
little
circles
here.
If
they
go
towards
the
end,
and
then
you
click
on
the
circle.
This
drop
down
is
out
of
screen.
However,
it
doesn't
allow
us
to
zoom
or
to
scroll
horizontally,
making
some
of
those
buttons
inaccessible.
So
in
that
case,
if
we
look
at
the
try
gene
we
say:
hey,
it's
a
broken
feature,
functionalities
inconvenient
or
as
cosmetic
issue.
I
would
perhaps
say.
A
It
is
this
issue,
it
was
a
severity
three,
so
I
would
say
an
imp
right
and
important
is
quite
important,
but
in
terms
of
feasibility,
I
think
this
would
be
quite
easy
to
fix
so
I'm
thinking
of
putting
it
here.
This
needs
a
little
bit
of
confirmation,
though
it's
a
little
bit
boring
but
we'll
get
through
it.
Let
me
see
the
next
one
reviewing
emerge,
requests
were
not
enough.
Access
results
in
four
or
four
jobs,
still
link
and
show
status.
A
When
a
review,
my
merge
request
from
a
repository
which
I
do
not
have
access
to
the
build
button.
It
sends
me
to
a
404
page.
It
should
be
clicking.
It
should
not
be
clickable
if
it's
not
possible
to
field
build.
That
is,
you
know
my
solution,
I
think
I
wouldn't
say
that
is
per
se
possible
or
needed.
B
A
A
A
B
What
are
the
chances
of
I
think
it?
It
can
happen
very
frequently
because
this
is
tied
to
the
roles
right,
like
the
role
based
actions
and
I
mean
if
it's
not
if
it
doesn't
fit
in
the
scope
of
my
role,
I
would
be
seeing
a
404
without
it
telling
me
what
went
wrong
so
I
might
think.
There's
something
wrong
with
the
platform
itself.
A
Yeah,
that's
true
I
would,
on
the
other
hand,
say
how
I
was
thinking
about
it
was
so.
The
scenario
in
which
this
happens
is
that
only
if
the
user
doesn't
have
permissions,
then
even
the
jobs
are
like
merchandise
for
which
I
do
not
have.
So.
This
happens
mostly
when
there's
a
fork
so
say,
there's
a
fork,
merge
quest
and
I
click
through
the
build.
Then
I
want
to
see
that
bill,
but
then
I
am
not
allowed
to
see
that,
because
I
do
not
have
permissions
for
that
repository.
A
A
A
A
Let
me
see
confusing
UI
grouping
of
merged
train
items
together
in
the
merge
requests,
parcel
merge,
question,
8,
merge
trains
are
separated
by
unrelated
items,
making
easy
to
miss
the
merge
button
on
short
windows,
/
screams
and
ER
stand.
This
might
be
intended
to
be
chronological,
but
that
is
not
really
the
case
anymore,
for
instance,
where
the
merged
result
pipeline
still
shows
its
activity.
In
the
first
step,
see
screenshot.
B
A
A
User
indicates
I
would
say
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
difficult
problem,
because
the
merge
quest,
widget
and
I'll
show
you
this.
It
has
a
lot
of
like
functional
problems
or
structural,
functional
problems
and
recently,
for
example,
we
have
changed
the
taps
to
be
at
the
top
of
the
page
before
that
was
the
key.
Is
you
had
to
scroll
down
and
then
underneath
the
merge
quest?
Widget,
you
would
find
the
tab,
so
it
was
hard
with
hard
to
discover
them.
The
merge
quest
widget,
which
is
this
information
block,
which
has
a
lot
of
information.
A
There
is
like
a
huge
like
crossroads
of
information,
everybody's
interesting
in
some
piece
of
information
day.
You
know
like
there's,
metrics,
there's
code,
quality
security
scanning
and
most
likely
you
won't
be
interested
in.
Like
80%
of
this
information.
Most
people
are
interesting.
Hey
is
my
pipeline.
Doing
right
we're
what
I'm
merging
exactly
can
I
merge
this
so
I
would
say
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
you
know.
Information
hierarchy
and
architecture,
problem
and
and
I
wouldn't
say,
is
so
much
related
to
CI.
A
In
that
case,
and
I
would
say,
generally
is
a
bigger
problem
than
that.
We're
now
able
to
fix
the
merge
quest.
Widget
is
I
believe
this
is
being
investigated
by
the
create
stage
group.
Again
again,
this
like
it's.
It's
such
an
every
change
we
make
to
the
merge
quest,
widget,
especially
information
architecture.
Wise,
has
a
huge
impact
because
everybody
has
a
little
bit
of
a
share
of
what
information
are
gonna
get
out
of
them
and
for
which
information
they
care
out
of
the
merchandise
region.
So
I
would
say
for
now.
A
B
A
B
A
I,
don't
think
it's
developed
yet,
but
merge
trains.
We
already
have
if
it's
that
optimized,
yet
I,
don't
think
so
and
for
this
issue
the
idea
is
that
if
you
have
like
enabled
merge
by
merge
train,
so
it's
in
the
queue,
however,
for
some
reason
it's
dropped
out
of
the
queue
and
it
is
considered
emerge.
Abul.
Then,
currently,
we
report
to
me
to
everyone
in
the
merged
quest
widget
with
these
system
messages.
So
this
is
a
system
as
you
message
of
somebody
adding.
A
This
is
a
system
message
of
somebody
being
assigned
as
an
assignee
and
some
of
the
unassigned
etc,
and
this
we
have
one
as
well
for
emerged
reign
that
says:
hey
somebody
has
removed
this
merged
quest
from
the
merchant
rank.
You
because
and
then
some
reasons
here
they
say
no
stage
is
less
jobs
for
this
pipeline.
For
some
reason,
however,
the
problem
here
indicated
is
that
this
is
the
administrators,
the
user.
While
it
is
the
merge
train
kind
of
like
system
that
throws
out
the
merge
request.
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
Let
me
see,
show
warning
message
for
me
immediately
on
merge
via
markdown
much
immediately
emergency
alert
time.
Okay,
so
this
is.
This
is
quite
easy
in
in
our
comment
editor.
We
have
all
kind
of
ways
to
have
quick
commands,
so,
instead
of
assigning
a
label
throughout
the
UI,
we
can
say:
hey
I,
want
to.
You
know,
put
a
certain
label
here
the
same
and
can
be
done
in
a
merge
quest.
Wait,
for
example,
we
can
say
label
and
ylabel
relay
will
close,
but
also
merge.
B
A
A
Mean
like
a
lot
is
kind
of
like
there's,
either
a
small
amount
or
a
lot
like
it's
more
than
a
small
amount.
So
I
would
put
this
on
for
now,
it's
a
little
bit
of
like
what
granularity
originally
working
with
right,
yeah
rich,
we're
stuck
on.
You
can
only
emerge
once
items
about
four
resolved
in
which
headlines
will
try
to
validate
the
post-merge
result
prior
to
merging
the
option
to
what
a
mouthful
merge
quest
cannot
be
merged.
It
is
stuck
on.
A
Okay,
this
seems
like
quite
a
quite
a
important
one,
but
also
hard
one
to
tackle.
It
also
has
like
severity
and
priority
labels
applied
by.
Let
me
see
who
has
applied
those
crystal
pool.
Okay,
it's
an
engineering
manager,
okay.
So
this
is
quite
important
and
is
this
continuously
patient
yeah,
there's
so
high
priority,
but
medium
feasibility
and.
A
So,
in
this
case
you
X
has
been
put
on
here
because
it
like
it
applies.
You
know
to
the
experience
of
trying
to
get
things
merged,
I
would
say
in
this.
We
are
there
to
help
out
product
management
and
engineering,
to
figure
out
which
use
cases
and
what
exactly
the
problem
is
and
kind
of
facilitate
they
she
going
into
the
right
direction,
and
you
know
if
sorry
go
ahead.
B
What
I
mean
is
I
mean
I
have
just
had
a
very
superficial
look
at
this,
but
what
I
understand
is
there
are
certain
validations
which
are
being
run
in
the
background,
even
though
users
are
shown
that
the
pipeline
has
been
successful
and
the
merge
request
has
been
approved.
So
those
validations
should
before.
B
A
Would
say
like
in
this
specific
case
the
problem
is
or
let
me
approach
differently.
So
this
is
the
merge
section
of
the
merge
quest
widget
right.
So
let
me
go
to
an
actual
merchandise
widget
here.
So
here's
what
I
would
like
to
call
the
request
section.
Then
we
have
the
pipeline
section.
Then
we
have
the
approve
section.
Then
we
have
the
test
section
and
for
some
reason
it
is
in
the
same
section
as
the
merged
section
of
which
was
wages
and
the
merge
section
kind
of
focuses
on
hey
can
I
merge.
A
It
says:
hey,
you
can
only
merge
once
the
items
above
when
the
sections
above
our
result
are
if
when
they
are
in
a
good
State,
but
they
are
in
a
good
State,
because
you
know
the
merge
section
like
the
request.
Section
is
always
good
but
like
hey,
the
pipeline
is
green
and
also
the
merge
quest
has
been
a
prune
like
there's,
there's
nothing
wrong
here.
So
then
the
case
is
like
why?
What?
What
is?
What
is
the
validation
it
is?
It
is
requiring
before
I'm
able
to
merge.
We
have
no
idea.
A
I
am,
in
that
case
I
would
say
we
are
either
like
there's
actually
a
bug
from
the
technical
side.
That
is,
for
some
reason
showcasing
this
error
in
a
case
where
it
shouldn't,
or
we
are
miss
informing
the
user
of
a
problem
that
is
existing.
But
you
know
we
are
not
informing
user
at
all.
So
I
would
say
we
need
to
figure
out
exactly
what
is
going
wrong
here
and
validate
what
what
the
problem
is
and
then
figure
out
the
appropriate
solution.
A
A
A
So
let
me
see
if
I
can
showcase
that
it's
worse,
because
we
do
already
do
this
in
a
different
view.
So
currently,
when
we
are
in
this
pipeline
detail
view,
let
me
let
this
finish.
We
can
see
here
now
what
for
what?
It
is,
what
is
kind
of
like
the
merge
quest
or
the
commit
and
description,
and
then
we
can
see
that
formation
and,
of
course,
there,
the
graph
and
there's
one
job
that
is
failed,
but
it
is
allowed
to
fail
in
this
case.
So
in
this
case,
we
can
see
here
within
the
tabs.
A
B
A
But
like
directly
visible
within
the
merge
quest
page
so
either
and
a
tab
where
perhaps
inside
of
a
discussion,
the
idea
is
to
kind
of
like
optimize,
that
workflow
or
figuring
out
what
has
gone
wrong
within
my
pipeline.
The
problem
is,
you
know,
can
be
that
like
50
jobs
failed,
then
you
would
have
50
excerpts
in
your
merge
quest
page
somewhere
of
what
is
going
wrong.
That's
maybe
too
much
information,
so
I
would
say
personally
this
needs
quite
a
bit
of
design
work,
even
though
it
is
an
interesting
feature.
I
mean
validation
as.
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
Yeah,
like
the
thing
is
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
really
matter
too
much
like
hey,
yes,
delete
source
branch
is
available
when
March
rains
is
available,
but
not
when
the
mixture
is
disabled,
but
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
even
say
hey
what
what
the
user
is
is
like,
like
wishing
for,
for
that,
for
the
option
to
be
available
or
not.
No,
it's
just
about
hey.
These
views
are
different.
Please
make
them
the
same.
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
from
meeting.
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
Found
it,
it
was
out
of
merge
failure.
Messages
should
be
posted
by
the
system,
not
the
user,
and
this
one
focuses
on
when
the
user.
When
the
merge
between
fails
because
of
merge
conflict,
the
messaging
doesn't
give
the
user
a
clear
explanation
of
what
happened
or
how
to
resolve
the
issue.
This
could
be
improved
by
improving
the
messaging
or
linking
to
the
docs.
A
B
A
Interesting
how
we
got
to
this,
so
we
have
here
a
block
of
like
hide
feasibility
but
low
importance.
Then
we
have
some
random
ones.
We
got
some
high
importance
but
low
feasibility,
and
then
we
have
this
these
bunch.
So
we
have
two
issues
that
are
the
main
thing:
I
want
to
quickly
see
into
this
one
and
see
what
kind
of
thing
we
can
give
in
here
merge
visible
for
non
maintainer,
okay.
A
This
is
an
s-1.
Did
you
do
added
all
right?
How
I
did
that
Python
should
improve
on
merging,
apparently
there's
impossible
to
merge,
merge
quest
when
the
pipeline
is
blocked,
who
blocked
waiting
for
my
action
recording
there
such
a
block
can
occur
if
the
action
is
okay.
Let's,
let's
move
this
up
as
well.
Severity
importance.
A
B
B
A
What
I'm
gonna
do
is
I'll
leave
the
feedback
here
in
the
issue,
and
I
will
mention
you
as
well.
I'll
push
those
issues
here
into
this
this
table
and
then
asked
how
to
very
like
validate
that
or
verify
that
verifies
the
BET
Award,
and
then
we
have
our
deliverable
for
what
I
want
to
get
out
of
this
meeting
and
preparation
for
our
efforts
for
OPR
for
verifying
release.
So
thank
you
for
your
input
here
and
it's
been
very
valuable.
I,
really
like
your
thoughts
towards
the
severity
of
those
items.
I'm
sorry,
this.