Not sure if this has been fixed already. I tried to edit WebHome
in this Bugs web and got:
SteffenPoulsen is editing WebHome. Their lease on this topic expired 16 days 19 hours 59 minutes 42 seconds ago.
This can be confusing to users. A lease should only be up to one hour (or whatever the config value is)
As the message says; their lease expired
16 days ago. Leases expire after 1 hour.
I assert that this is a confusing technical message that can intimidate new users. Genuinely asking, what is the reason to show this message then? If no compelling reason I sugegst to get rid of this error message.
this message cannot be simply brushed under the carpet. If you believe that its confusing, then please at least help out by suggesting an alternative, that informs the user why they are getting the 'sorry, that page is locked' error, and that in this instance they can probably safely choose to break that lock. simply removing it totally is only going to make it harder to work out the difference between a page that someone didn't cancel the edit on (i think this is how it happens), and one where they are activly editing.
Peter, this is a tradeoff. The message was originally added in response to newbie complaints about not being kept informed. You can't have it both ways.
As the full text of the message clearly states, the editing user may simply have navigated away from the page. It seems to me that this is necessary information, as well as sufficient for the end user to make an informed decision about whether to ignore the lease. It should only be intimidating to users who can't read. If you can suggest a better wording for the message, it is easy enough to modify the template. However I feel that removing this message completely ignores the feedback that drove its addition in the first place, and plunges the end user back into to the unknown. -- CC
I have no silver bullet to solve this nicely. Cairo did not have this issue since it did not have the auto-merge. It actually happens very frequently that people hit edit (instead of "view raw") to look at the source, then wander away. That means that users will get this lease expired warning quite often. Now, what is the chance that someone edit a topic, forgets about it, then comes back after one day to save it? Much less likely then hitting edit to see the source. Therefore I think it makes sense to "brushed the message under the carpet". Possibly omit the message after 4 times lease expire time? That is, users might come back after a few hours to save a topic, but it is highly unlikely that that happens after a few days.
Wouldn't it be enough to add a message (for instance when the lock is older than 24 hours) like: "When the lock is older than 1 day, it is most likely safe to edit the topic. If you are unsure check with [author name]." -- AC
I'd suggest that we have a second config variable, say,
. We show the "lease expiry" message only
WARNING_THRESHOLD * timeout
long. If the lease expired longer than that, we directly go into the edit mode.
I agree that it is helpful to know that somebody began editing but then stopped, but only within reason. After a while, this message is just an interruption of the work flow. -- TW
If we had the TWiki:Codev.AfterBreakLockHandler
we could slowly educate people not to leave topics locked. -- MC
There is nothing wrong with leaving a topic after edit without canceling; education is only required as to the consequences (lease expiring... topic might get merged if edited later...)
If the topic is in discussion mode it probably makes no difference. If the document is a summary then the first user might want to take a further look at the topic as what they thought they wrote may have become out of context. I agree the wording of the message would have to be picked carefully but the second user did choose to break the lock... -- MC
There really is no lock in Dakar; you only have a lease, and once this expires editing the text is not "breaking a lock"... otherwise you would have a lock until the end of time...
The warning threshold is actually the most general solution, as it allows the site to determine what "within reason" means. We could have -1 for infinity, 0 for never, or some integer number of seconds after which the warning is not issued. SVN 7231 -- CC