Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #23005

open

Inconsistencies in “DNS settings” directive

Added by Michel BOUISSOU over 1 year ago. Updated 5 months ago.

Status:
New
Priority:
N/A
Assignee:
-
Category:
Techniques
Target version:
Severity:
Minor - inconvenience | misleading | easy workaround
UX impact:
It bothers me each time
User visibility:
Getting started - demo | first install | Technique editor and level 1 Techniques
Effort required:
Priority:
52
Name check:
To do
Fix check:
To do
Regression:
No

Description

The are some inconsistencies in the “DNS settings” system technique :

- When creating a new directive from this technique, it shows up with both “Nameservers” and “Search suffix” sections open, and the “Options settings” section closed.
- Although the search entry is optional as well as the “options”...

- The displayed options come with a [Delete “blah” #1] button, but this button doen't work as long as there is only one entry, leading to the idea that at least one entry is mandatory (where it isn't i.e. for “search” and ”options”).

- The checkboxes on each section to “enforce” the settings are confusing. Why would we want to list entries that we wouldn't want to apply ? The use of the “enforce” term is even more confusing because it might lead to thinking that will will be “enforced” even though the directive would be in “audit” mode, which is probably not the case.

I suggest that the checkbox be removed, and the technique should not pre-populate its section with sample entries.

i.e. What should I dot if I don't want any “search entry” ? I can't delete it, so should I empty the given sample ? Should I just not check the box that would ”enforce” it ? But if I want to enforce the absence of a “search” entry, how can I achieve this ?


Files

Technique_DNS_settings.png (75.8 KB) Technique_DNS_settings.png Michel BOUISSOU, 2023-07-04 16:40
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF