Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Accepted Tutorial + signed Speaker Agreement == only 15% off? | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Nick Boldt <nboldt> |
| Component: | EclipseCon | Assignee: | Karl Matthias <karl.matthias> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | aniefer, bjorn.freeman-benson, gabe.obrien, overholt |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Nick Boldt
Did you do this part? "If you are a speaker at EclipseCon, you should enter the talk numbers of any shared talks you intend to use toward a discount, separated by commas (in the 'Accepted Talks' field)." Karl, Gabe - maybe we should change the wording to: "You are a registered speaker, but you need to specify your talk number to receive the speaker discount" when people have more than one discount or more than one speaker. (In reply to comment #1) > Did you do this part? "If you are a speaker at EclipseCon, you should enter the > talk numbers of any shared talks you intend to use toward a discount, separated > by commas (in the 'Accepted Talks' field)." Yes. BTW, this page doesn't seem secure. Even when not logged in, I can enter someone's email address and talk # and get their reg code. For example... try overholt@redhat.com and 302 to see Andrew O's code and a note about the fact that he and Andrew N need to sign the speaker agreements before we can get our reg code. This exposes another problem -- Andrew N prolly won't get travel approval from IBM until late Feb or early March (and thus has no motivation to sign the speaker agreement, esp. since we only get two free registrations), which means for Andrew O and I to register, we either need to drop Andrew N, or register late. Is this the intended workflow here? (In reply to comment #3) > Yes. BTW, this page doesn't seem secure. Even when not logged in, I can enter > someone's email address and talk # and get their reg code. Yes, that's because the page is meant for more than just speakers. > Is this the intended workflow here? That is the intended workflow: we want the eclipsecon.org pages to show the potential attendees who is actually committed to speaking at EclipseCon. We don't want to do a Steve Jobs/MacWorld type thing. (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Yes. BTW, this page doesn't seem secure. Even when not logged in, I can enter > > someone's email address and talk # and get their reg code. > Yes, that's because the page is meant for more than just speakers. OK, sure, but I can look up some speaker's email address in Bugzilla, then use that address combined w/ their tutorial # to use their reg code before they get a chance. Sure, it's unlikely, but where there's a will there's a hack. > > Is this the intended workflow here? > That is the intended workflow: we want the eclipsecon.org pages to show the > potential attendees who is actually committed to speaking at EclipseCon. We > don't want to do a Steve Jobs/MacWorld type thing. Fair enough. Andrew and Andrew, can you sign your speaker agreements? (In reply to comment #5) > Sure, it's unlikely, but where there's a will there's a hack. Don't worry, we have a separate system for monitoring that and we will (and do) invalidate identify-borrowing registrations. (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Sure, it's unlikely, but where there's a will there's a hack. > > Don't worry, we have a separate system for monitoring that and we will (and do) > invalidate identify-borrowing registrations. It's EXTREMELY obvious when this happens, too, so the chances of someone slipping by are near zero. (In reply to comment #2) > Karl, Gabe - maybe we should change the wording to: "You are a registered > speaker, but you need to specify your talk number to receive the speaker > discount" > when people have more than one discount or more than one speaker. It automatically calculates any discounts for individual talks without them being entered. It already produces various errors about not having signed agreements, or getting a larger discount if you enter your talk numbers. This appears to be some other bug. It has to be either something with that "+" in the email address somewhere or the talk is not properly marked as accepted, or something like that. I'll look into it. So this is the same problem as pretty much every other problem we have with the submissions system: Nick has two accounts. In this case they have the same email address, which is unusual. His committer address must have been changed after the new account was created in the submissions system. This query in the discounter is the problem:
5.) foundation (2)rows: SELECT PersonID From People WHERE LOWER(EMail) = LOWER('nickboldt+bugzilla@gmail.com')
The (2) rows is where things go wrong. It returns 'nickb' first, but 'nickb' has no registered talks. The talks are all registered to 'nboldt1'. I will clean up the database.
Nick, is this part of your cloning program?! Fixed. The one issue is that your photo might be outdated now, Nick. Please double check that. In the process of working on this I also discovered that there is a third Nick (I'm going with the cloning story): nboldt. This Nick appears to also have been provisioned as a CVS user so I need to straighten that out. This is a mess. . BTW, this is the message the Discount Calculator now shows for Nick: * You would have a free registration for giving talk 302 if you and all of your co-speakers had signed your speaker agreement. Please have everyone sign it and come back to complete your registration. (In reply to comment #12) > BTW, this is the message the Discount Calculator now shows for Nick: I'm still seeing this: # Eligible for Committer Discount (15%). # No record of your email address as an employee of an Eclipse Member company. # No record of your email address as an EclipseCon alumni. in addition to what you mention above, namely: # You wouldhave a free registration for giving talk 302 if you and all of your co-speakers had signed your speaker agreement. Please have everyone sign it and come back to complete your registration. (Not sure if the "wouldhave" is actually correctly spaced as a view-source on the page doesn't show me this dynamically-loaded copy.) It doesn't really matter to me if you don't have me on file as an alumnus or an employee of an Eclipse Member company, just so long as the admission reg code works, once the Andrews sign it. Of course if you're a stickler for database accuracy, then, well, those should be fixed too. (In reply to comment #9) > Nick, is this part of your cloning program?! Yes, we are legion. (In reply to comment #13) > It doesn't really matter to me if you don't have me on file as an alumnus or an > employee of an Eclipse Member company, That's true (it doesn't matter to you), but the details of which discounts a person is eligible for has been a large source of support phone calls at the registration desk, so we choose to show all the details of all the discounts all the time - this has reduced the support phone calls (and thus saves the Foundation money). (In reply to comment #13) > I'm still seeing this: > > # Eligible for Committer Discount (15%). > # No record of your email address as an employee of an Eclipse Member company. > # No record of your email address as an EclipseCon alumni. > > in addition to what you mention above, namely: > > # You wouldhave a free registration for giving talk 302 if you and all of your > co-speakers had signed your speaker agreement. Please have everyone sign it and > come back to complete your registration. Yes, it tells you all of the things it knows so you can see how it calculated the discount. Fixed the space problem. There were two HTML tags jammed in where the space should be. > employee of an Eclipse Member company, just so long as the admission reg code > works, once the Andrews sign it. Of course if you're a stickler for database > accuracy, then, well, those should be fixed too. Yes it will work. I checked into the problem with the membership stuff and it has to do with the fact that you are not using your member email address so it can't tell by the domain name, and there was a problem with the query for members where this is not the case. I fixed that, so thanks for drawing my attention to it. > (In reply to comment #9) > > Nick, is this part of your cloning program?! > Yes, we are legion. :) |