Adding New Users to CORE only
As it happens, I have about nine users who have been using Jira Software (under the old pre-Core division) for quite some time. They are now on Jira Software.
I also have a fifty-user license for Core, obtained recently, to which I intend to add the rest of the company for strictly business issue management.
However, when adding a user to Core, despite not having Software or Helpdesk selected, it insists that I have attempted to add the user to the other apps.
Forgive me for pointing this out, but I don't think this is an uncommon circumstance. Certainly it is one that should have been anticipated in your user stories. Is it not blatantly obvious that you might have people with low-user-count software and IT licenses, which might be full? And that the "Core" product you're trying to push into business use would then have larger user counts, to which admins would want to add/remove users without bothering the more limited licenses?
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it doesn't seem like a brainiac would have been needed to anticipate this.
I find this sort of dumbassery really unappealing, especially in software that is over ten years old. What fool programmed this? And how do we get this settled?
I would say "thank you", but I consider this a bug with a very high Borked rating, which should never have escaped into the wild. As such, thanks would be inappropriate.
Please advise.
T
3 answers
1 accepted
Thanks for getting back to me. This is a Server license, yes. The Applications group appears as follows:
I'm assuming this is what you needed, as there are only pages, no tabs.
Our service desk licenses are full - as it should be.
Our Jira-software licenses are also full - as it should be.
We have 49 seats remaining on Core - but the system insists that new users be added to the full licenses, apparently.
I've read through the extended documentation numerous times. The one you refer to for server products, "Licensing and application access", is not documentation. It is "here's what should happen". It is not "how to accomplish X task". Have you noticed that? It's a descriptor, not a manual. It's like reading bad comments in software - "here's what this code is doing, it's a for loop from 0 to 100." There's not a how to in there. Only what the author thinks will happen.
An interesting note here - Jira did not create "jira-core-users" when it was installed (we had a software team using it for several years first, so we did have jira-users). I'm assuming since it was the first product that's the only group made. Don't know if that's intentional or not. I created the additional group myself yesterday, while attempting to establish a set of defaults that would work. Haven't worked out a default permissions scheme for it yet, but that's on my agenda for today.
A note on my tone above:
While I do recognize that this package does run elsewhere - successfully, I might add, since I myself have run it in multiple companies over the last decade (which is why I chose it here) - this user management scheme is, shall we say, 'less than clean'?
As an example of what I'm referring to - we have three apps, which under your own business model are considered to be licensed independently. Looking at my first screenshot, let's set aside that I don't want this user attached to Service Desk or Jira Software. Let's assume I wanted to connect the user to all three.
Obviously, I don't have licensing for that. But I *do* have licensing for one of them. A smart program would either message me that I have insufficient licensing for the two, and enable me to deselect the two, or would message me that it will skip the two while adding the third, or would ask me if I wished to continue with just the third. Perhaps even ask me if I'd like to upgrade my licensing for the insufficient counts. These are supposedly separate licensing for different apps, after all.
Instead, this software aborts completely and prevents me from adding a user to even a single valid licensed product. There is no direct way to override the defaults in this page. Instead, here we are talking about how to get behind the scenes and re-orient the entire user registration mechanism to work around this.
Do you seriously not see a problem with that?
This is the kind of stupid error I would expect from a Linux jockey in his mom's basement, whose only concern over UI/UX is that someone can reach a feature from the command line with the right twelve parameters and the correct incantation from Harry Potter. Not a professional software firm offering a web interfaced system intended to provide a sensible and working user interface.
So please spare me the "it works elsewhere, so there's nothing wrong" commentary. All that tells me is that you have grown complacent, or that your product managers don't care. That's the kind of situation that invites competitors to build the better version. Sadly, I am a bit busy designing a new DNA synthesizer and cannot devote time to doing just that, so I am instead voicing my concern to the manufacturer - whom I expect will take customer feedback seriously. Particularly when it is about something like a UI that prevents system function.
At present this is generating a score of 4 on the severity scale (prevents user access) and a 5 on the visibility scale (all users encounter it) in this shop. That's pretty big. Not data-loss big, but big.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.