starred/documenso

Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/documenso/documenso.git synced 2026-04-25 22:05:59 +03:00

[GH-ISSUE #622] [IMPROVEMENT]: issue template fixes and improvement #173

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-02-26 18:45:42 +03:00 by kerem · 4 comments

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:45:42 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @Dun-sin on GitHub (Nov 2, 2023).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/documenso/documenso/issues/622

Improvement Description

here's a list of my suggestion:

the number of fields are too long and can be dropped to 3 max
the required field should be indicated
adding a checkbox if the issue raiser wants to work on it

Rationale

Will be talking from a user standpoint or contributor standpoint:

number of fields: it's super tasking and looks pretty repetitive
required fields: any contributor can just click on crate and they will be allowed which i'm guessing isn't what you want
contributor wants to pick issue: it's an unneeded extra task to after creating an issue, ask to be assigned as the issue creator

Proposed Solution

solution:

number of fields: we can achieve the same thing but in a shorter way, for instance:
we can have the steps needed in a list format e.g

 - tell us why the improvement is benefical
 - tell us the proposed solution

here:

and also combine additional information and alternatives in the same way

required fields: you can add this to each body type:
contributor wants to pick issue: add a checkbox for this and make it required

Alternatives (optional)

No response

Additional Context

we can further break this into smaller issues some `good first issues`

Please check the boxes that apply to this improvement suggestion.

I have searched the existing issues and improvement suggestions to avoid duplication.
I have provided a clear description of the improvement being suggested.
I have explained the rationale behind this improvement.
I have included any relevant technical details or design suggestions.
I understand that this is a suggestion and that there is no guarantee of implementation.

Originally created by @Dun-sin on GitHub (Nov 2, 2023). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/documenso/documenso/issues/622 ### Improvement Description here's a list of my suggestion: - the number of fields are too long and can be dropped to 3 max - the required field should be indicated - adding a checkbox if the issue raiser wants to work on it ![image](https://github.com/documenso/documenso/assets/78784850/542278ce-c131-46a2-85d6-516183de20d2) ### Rationale Will be talking from a user standpoint or contributor standpoint: - number of fields: it's super tasking and looks pretty repetitive - required fields: any contributor can just click on crate and they will be allowed which i'm guessing isn't what you want - contributor wants to pick issue: it's an unneeded extra task to after creating an issue, ask to be assigned as the issue creator ### Proposed Solution solution: - number of fields: we can achieve the same thing but in a shorter way, for instance: we can have the steps needed in a list format e.g ``` - tell us why the improvement is benefical - tell us the proposed solution ``` here: ![image](https://github.com/documenso/documenso/assets/78784850/7d8e6e20-40c7-4bf3-8219-4d010859ec9a) and also combine additional information and alternatives in the same way - required fields: you can add this to each body type: ![image](https://github.com/documenso/documenso/assets/78784850/af1114c8-45fb-4f5b-89ed-f0740e4a9651) - contributor wants to pick issue: add a checkbox for this and make it required ### Alternatives (optional) _No response_ ### Additional Context ### we can further break this into smaller issues some `good first issues` ### Please check the boxes that apply to this improvement suggestion. - [X] I have searched the existing issues and improvement suggestions to avoid duplication. - [X] I have provided a clear description of the improvement being suggested. - [X] I have explained the rationale behind this improvement. - [X] I have included any relevant technical details or design suggestions. - [X] I understand that this is a suggestion and that there is no guarantee of implementation.

kerem

2026-02-26 18:45:42 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
community
label

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:45:43 +03:00

Author

Owner

@catalinpit commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2023):

Hey @Dun-sin, thanks for the suggestion! It looks good to me, but if we can make this easier and shorter, I'm up for it. Maybe the Improvement Description and Rationale could be mashed together. I also think that Alternatives and Additional Context could be optional.

I specifically like the points about making it obvious which fields are obvious and adding the checkbox so people can pick the issue easier.

@catalinpit commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2023): Hey @Dun-sin, thanks for the suggestion! It looks good to me, but if we can make this easier and shorter, I'm up for it. Maybe the `Improvement Description` and `Rationale` could be mashed together. I also think that `Alternatives` and `Additional Context` could be optional. I specifically like the points about making it obvious which fields are obvious and adding the checkbox so people can pick the issue easier.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:45:43 +03:00

Author

Owner

@Dun-sin commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2023):

Hey @Dun-sin, thanks for the suggestion! It looks good to me, but if we can make this easier and shorter, I'm up for it. Maybe the Improvement Description and Rationale could be mashed together. I also think that Alternatives and Additional Context could be optional.

I specifically like the points about making it obvious which fields are obvious and adding the checkbox so people can pick the issue easier.

yeah my main point for the longevity is to combine related fields, just like you said

@Dun-sin commented on GitHub (Nov 6, 2023): > Hey @Dun-sin, thanks for the suggestion! It looks good to me, but if we can make this easier and shorter, I'm up for it. Maybe the `Improvement Description` and `Rationale` could be mashed together. I also think that `Alternatives` and `Additional Context` could be optional. > > I specifically like the points about making it obvious which fields are obvious and adding the checkbox so people can pick the issue easier. yeah my main point for the longevity is to combine related fields, just like you said

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:45:43 +03:00

Author

Owner

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2023):

This issue has not seen activity for a while. It will be closed in 30 days unless further activity is detected

@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 8, 2023): This issue has not seen activity for a while. It will be closed in 30 days unless further activity is detected

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:45:43 +03:00

Author

Owner

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2024):

Wasn't assigned and I apologise for that but we've now incorporated the associated improvements ❤️

@Mythie commented on GitHub (Jan 18, 2024): Wasn't assigned and I apologise for that but we've now incorporated the associated improvements ❤️

kerem referenced this issue

2026-02-26 18:48:51 +03:00

[PR #173] [MERGED] fix: deprecated type checks and imports from @prisma/client #772

No milestone

No project

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference

starred/documenso#173

No description provided.

Rows
Columns

[GH-ISSUE #622] [IMPROVEMENT]: issue template fixes and improvement #173

Improvement Description

Rationale

Proposed Solution

Alternatives (optional)

Additional Context

we can further break this into smaller issues some good first issues

Please check the boxes that apply to this improvement suggestion.

we can further break this into smaller issues some `good first issues`