OS - Date picker bug

no date needed since there are clients who have 50-100 million events and no date, it's stupid to open nothing prevents you from filtering for 5 years, for example

and also if you show events from a contact, then the date is not filtered then you open a contact, press send to and select the application event and you will be shown without a date all the events of the contact

[quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production OneBox CTO wrote: no date needed since there are clients who have 50-100 million events and no date, it's stupid to open nothing prevents you from filtering for 5 years, for example [/quote] The system does not display everything at once, it will simply show that there are 100 million events in the system, but it will display the last 50, which is why I asked why the system automatically substitutes the date if I did not supply it there. [quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production OneBox CTO wrote: then you open a contact, press send to and select the application event and you will be shown without a date all the events of the contact [/quote] (If you send B, the system will also display 100 million events :))))) We are not used to this feature. It's easier for me to enter events and find a contact there than to go into the contact list, search for a contact, then send to ... And this window with 'send to' applications is also inconvenient in its current form. In short, torment wherever you stick ... (

[quote] Kornev Mikhail Ergo wrote: [quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production OneBox CTO wrote: no date needed since there are clients who have 50-100 million events and no date, it's stupid to open nothing prevents you from filtering for 5 years, for example [/quote] The system does not display everything at once, it will simply show that there are 100 million events in the system, but it will display the last 50, which is why I asked why the system automatically substitutes the date if I did not supply it there. [quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production OneBox CTO wrote: then you open a contact, press send to and select the application event and you will be shown without a date all the events of the contact [/quote] (If you send B, the system will also display 100 million events :))))) We are not used to this feature. It's easier for me to enter events and find a contact there than to go into the contact list, search for a contact, then send to ... And this window with 'send to' applications is also inconvenient in its current form. In short, torment wherever you stick ... ( [/quote] you are suffering everywhere you are directly tormented with software, no one except you writes such nonsense maybe it's easier for you then not to use the software once you are suffering with it?

[quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production OneBox CTO wrote: [quote] Kornev Mikhail Ergo wrote: [quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production OneBox CTO wrote: no date needed since there are clients who have 50-100 million events and no date, it's stupid to open nothing prevents you from filtering for 5 years, for example [/quote] The system does not display everything at once, it will simply show that there are 100 million events in the system, but it will display the last 50, which is why I asked why the system automatically substitutes the date if I did not supply it there. [quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production OneBox CTO wrote: then you open a contact, press send to and select the application event and you will be shown without a date all the events of the contact [/quote] (If you send B, the system will also display 100 million events :))))) We are not used to this feature. It's easier for me to enter events and find a contact there than to go into the contact list, search for a contact, then send to ... And this window with 'send to' applications is also inconvenient in its current form. In short, torment wherever you stick ... ( [/quote] you are suffering everywhere you are directly tormented with software, no one except you writes such nonsense [/quote] A worthy answer from your side... You suggest either not using some option (because it was not originally thought out, or left from the old version of the system), or doing it in another way, longer or bypass. I am trying to explain to you (for this I use words colored with emotions) so that you think about some questions, and not just answer 'this is how it works and that's it'. I compare boxing with any other system in which I work, starting with android and Windows, to which everyone is accustomed, but for some reason in boxing initially there are some moments that work very ... strange, unusual and more often it is inconvenient than comfortable. [quote] maybe it's easier for you then not to use the software once you are suffering with it? [/quote] How else can I influence the situation, except through the forum that was created for this?! Then ask yourself the question: If you can’t do something well or do it better, it might be easier not to work in this area and make room for those who can change something ...

Michael, the problem is that you can't tell a feature from a "bug", and therefore you attribute everything that you don't like to a bug. You have already been explained why it works this way, all functional restrictions are aimed at system performance, and everything that does not improve system performance cannot be an investment. The bottom line is that boxing gives you the opportunity to make custom improvements and if you really need something, you can order a paid revision and implement the desired function for money, but you prefer to promote all your improvements as improvements, which they are not always. And in the current situation, doing free individual improvements is tantamount to losses up to the closure of the enterprise if done indiscriminately, which will send all your investments (for box tuning) to nowhere, just like your last offer. I, like any user of the system, welcome the improvements, but there must be common sense.

[quote] Kornev Mikhail Ergo wrote: A worthy answer from your side... You suggest either not using some option (because it was not originally thought out, or left from the old version of the system), or doing it in another way, longer or bypass. I am trying to explain to you (for this I use words colored with emotions) so that you think about some questions, and not just answer 'this is how it works and that's it'. I compare boxing with any other system in which I work, starting with android and Windows, to which everyone is accustomed, but for some reason in boxing initially there are some moments that work very ... strange, unusual and more often it is inconvenient than comfortable. [/quote] I'm tired of answering your tickets "90%" of them are useless because you do not distinguish (or do not want to accept) the logic that we have put in the way you want.

[quote] Ustimenko Igor OneBox production OneBox CTO wrote: [quote] [/quote] I'm tired of answering your tickets "90%" of them are useless because you do not distinguish (or do not want to accept) the logic that we have put in the way you want. [/quote] 1. You don't have to answer my tickets if you think I'm just doing "bullshit". But I want to understand the system, and I am obliged to report bugs (even if they are minor from the point of view of developers), stupid moments of the system, etc., because, firstly, I want to get a stable product for money, not a demo version, and I am interested in that the system was convenient, fast and comfortable in work for employees-users. You can just write "We can't help you with your ticket because we don't want to" if you have such problems and are tired. 2. In this ticket, answering my question, you contradict yourself and do not explain the logic embedded in the date field. First you are talking about 100 million events, and without a date it is stupid to open it. And then it turns out that if you "send B", then all events will be displayed and this is no longer stupid. In this case, what's the point of immediately setting the default date if only 50 events are initially loaded on the screen (that is, 100 million events will not load the events page in any way)? https://youtu.be/CN7qzG1cqQQ What for generally there to put date on-default on 6 days? What is the logic for exactly 6 days? Why not 10 days or one month? 3. There is a bug right away: it is impossible to completely remove the date from these fields. After deletion, the date returns back (this moment is on the video), even when a specific contact is selected. But if "send to" as you advised, then the date disappears! - why then it cannot be removed simply in events? https://youtu.be/4OPk22iV7VU https://youtu.be/bZCu4U5GB7M 4. And one more bug with the year: it is impossible to change only the year without changing the month and day. It turns out that the year changes only if you select the day of the month. What is the logic here if I only need to change the year? https://youtu.be/9vq3IqRtzvQ In this ticket, I described several bugs and attached a video, but you stubbornly ignore this, believing that the system should work this way? And she can't get better? Hope to get some answers. [quote] Sukhanitsky Andrey OneBox Corp. Integrator wrote: Michael, the problem is that you can't tell a feature from a "bug", and therefore you attribute everything that you don't like to a bug. You have already been explained why it works this way, all functional restrictions are aimed at system performance, and everything that does not improve system performance cannot be an investment. The bottom line is that boxing gives you the opportunity to make custom improvements and if you really need something, you can order a paid revision and implement the desired function for money, but you prefer to promote all your improvements as improvements, which they are not always. And in the current situation, doing free individual improvements is tantamount to losses up to the closure of the enterprise if done indiscriminately, which will send all your investments (for box tuning) to nowhere, just like your last offer. I, like any user of the system, welcome the improvements, but there must be common sense. [/quote] Is there common sense in what is described above?

OK