Beta Calendar Issues

[eblood66]

If you are website administrator and you don't have approver rights then you probably aren't listed with the calling in MLS or you're listed using a non-standard calling.

Actually I just looked at the list of approvers for our ward and our website administrator does not show up even though he is listed in CDOL. There must be a problem with how it checks for the position. My guess is that the numeric code for the position in the calendar doesn't match the one used in CDOL. In any case, it looks like there is a bug, at least at the ward level but probably at the stake level too. An issue was opened in the Jira issue tracker about this a couple hours ago so the developers should be looking into it.

[aebrown]

In any case, it looks like there is a bug, at least at the ward level but probably at the stake level too.

All the approvers look correct at the stake level for my stake. Everyone is in CDOL correctly, and the stake presidency, clerks, and executive secretary all show up as approvers. So it may be that the problem you're seeing is only at the ward level.

[eblood66]

All the approvers look correct at the stake level for my stake. Everyone is in CDOL correctly, and the stake presidency, clerks, and executive secretary all show up as approvers. So it may be that the problem you're seeing is only at the ward level.

Do you have a stake website administrator who is not stake clerk or an assistant clerk? What I'm seeing on the ward level is that the bishopric, clerks and executive secretary all show up fine but the website administrator (who is not an assistant clerk in our ward) does not show up.

[aebrown]

Do you have a stake website administrator who is not stake clerk or an assistant clerk? What I'm seeing on the ward level is that the bishopric, clerks and executive secretary all show up fine but the website administrator (who is not an assistant clerk in our ward) does not show up.

I can see how that might possibly be different. No, we don't have a separate stake website administrator. But nonetheless, I am the stake website administrator, and I am listed separately as a clerk and as the stake website administrator on separate lines of the approver list. I would think that if there were a problem with stake website administrators being on the approver list, I wouldn't be on the list with that calling, regardless of whether I were there as a clerk.

[eblood66]

I can see how that might possibly be different. No, we don't have a separate stake website administrator. But nonetheless, I am the stake website administrator, and I am listed separately as a clerk and as the stake website administrator on separate lines of the approver list. I would think that if there were a problem with stake website administrators being on the approver list, I wouldn't be on the list with that calling, regardless of whether I were there as a clerk.

I agree. If you are showing up with both the clerk and website administrator positions, then it doesn't look like there is a problem at the stake level. Previously I hadn't dug into the code far enough to tell whether all positions would be displayed for each approver but it looks like they are.

So this does look like a ward level problem.

[jonesrk]

I agree. If you are showing up with both the clerk and website administrator positions, then it doesn't look like there is a problem at the stake level. Previously I hadn't dug into the code far enough to tell whether all positions would be displayed for each approver but it looks like they are.

So this does look like a ward level problem.

I was recently working on reviewing the constants that are being used, and it appears that the ones that have been used in the past had a WEBSITE_ADMINISTRATOR with an id of 96. This has been clarified to be the district website administrator. The new id is 1559. If there is a jira logged for this then I will see if I can talk to the developers so they can see the problem.

[eblood66]

I was recently working on reviewing the constants that are being used, and it appears that the ones that have been used in the past had a WEBSITE_ADMINISTRATOR with an id of 96. This has been clarified to be the district website administrator. The new id is 1559. If there is a jira logged for this then I will see if I can talk to the developers so they can see the problem.

The Jira entry is here: https://tech.lds.org/jira/browse/LUC-653

It looks to me that the most recent version in SVN uses the 1559 ID so it may be that the beta site just hasn't been updated since that change was made (2/10/2010). I couldn't find any way to tell the build ID or date of the beta site.

[dobrichelovek]

I have full access to my ward's directory. The only thing I can think of is to make sure you are indeed logged in.

I am logged in, and I just tried again with the same result. I can confirm that I am logged in by going to the beta calendar site, adding a new calendar, and adding my wife as a calendar editor. I hardly think that her name would be showing up if I wasn't properly logged in. But I appreciate the experiences that you probably have had with some end-users that would have prompted you to suggest this.

I reported this to the link that I found in the page source. Hopefully we'll find something cool that will make it better for everyone going forward. This is what I love about participating in Betas.

[jdlessley]

Calendar:

I have not seen it explicitly stated, but since I am a ward website administrator, and I do not have admin rights on the beta calendar site, I would guess that the automatic admin rights only apply when such a calling is designated in MLS and the LUWS admin designation doesn't apply here, is that accurate? If it's not, then I am confused as to why I don't have access.

Has anyone checked CDOL to see if you are listed there as the ward website administrator? I ask because our stake website administrator was listed in MLS using the standard positions as stake website administrator yet he was not listed in CDOL and therefore was not included in the list of default approvers for the stake.

[dobrichelovek]

Has anyone checked CDOL to see if you are listed there as the ward website administrator? I ask because our stake website administrator was listed in MLS using the standard positions as stake website administrator yet he was not listed in CDOL and therefore was not included in the list of default approvers for the stake.

Nobody has yet checked. I'm pretty sure I'm not in there though. My bishopric has asked me to hold the position of backup ward website administrator, but it's just because they know I know what's going on (thanks tech.lds.org) and want me to always be there to support the 'official' ward website administrator while still having me fulfill other callings. So I'm uniquely assigned by the bishopric with Ward administrator privileges, but not as a ward clerk or in MLS as anything to have to do with the calling as far as I know. I was guessing that the disparity between the LUWS callings list and the callings represented in MLS would eventually be resolved by returning to MLS dominance, so I'm not at all surprised by this move, but it does make it a little more difficult for me to stay an expert on what is happening without the bishopric directing that I get marked in the right place in MLS so that I can inherit those admin abilities. I do believe it's the proper way to do it though.

I am curious if the beta directory issues I'm seeing aren't being seen by anyone else here because they have the privileges which I lack. I would guess that the vast majority of the lurkers here are officially in positions where they would have the needed permissions, so if that truly is part of the problem, then I am in a unique position to see it.

Thanks all for the clarification on the need to be designated properly in MLS. Even though it made sense to me, the docs simply state that people in those positions get the proper permissions, not that those callings as specified in MLS get those permissions. I simply wanted to clarify the source, since my permissions come exclusively from the fact that I am a LUWS admin, and nowhere else is that specified.