CWBRN-32994 - Save As Track Template - inefficient and shows UI of plugins unnecessarily

1) New project.
2) Add an audio track (Track 1). Save as track template. Works normal.
3) Add Kontakt instrument track (Track 2). Save this single track as track template. Works normal.
4) Move audio track so it's the last track (Kontact = Track 1).
5) Now save the audio track as track template again.

Expected
 
Business as usual
 
Actual
You see the Kontakt box pop up quickly (and unnecessarily). This shouldn't be by design.
 
Whilst not a destructive bug it has the potential, it seems weird that all tracks need to be iterated through in order to save a track template. And even if it needs to do this Kontakt should not be displaying. The code doesn't seem particular efficient, and track templates do appear to be very slow indeed to create.
 
Validate and I'll get a CWBRN.
 
(Thread Subject edited by Bob Bone for clarity, to have the subject reflect the actual issue)
 

? I provided actual steps to reproduce.
I'm not asking for troubleshooting (unless you can't reproduce this). If I needed that I would have posted in the Sonar forums first.



Handbook
Discussions and questions about products will be moved to the appropriate forum.
Other users are unable to reproduce the issue. This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not a bug. Sometimes there are system-specific issues that can cause unexpected behavior in Cakewalk products. Now, there are a few cases in which a forum thread becomes non-productive, and may be locked or moved.

-----


The only time I would need more eyeballs if I need the issue to be troubleshooted, if somebody hasn't even attempted to validate it... it should not be moved out of problem reports unless the steps are too difficult to follow after multiple requests or you think this is automatically a system specific issue.
 
Guess we are making it up as well go along here... nevermind 
 

Boing back into problem reports... Do I need to start PM'ing and logging tickets for somebody to get it moved now ?


> Hope the Baker won't give this minor issue high priority.
 
Check out the number of issues with track templates. I have been testing them as much as possible I hope bakers get them working speedy and reliable before they move onto the next thing. They have been applying fixes recently and have been asking for feedback.

Doktor Avalanche
> Hope the Baker won't give this minor issue high priority.
 
Check out the number of issues with track templates. I have been testing them as much as possible I hope bakers get them working speedy and reliable before they move onto the next thing. They have been applying fixes recently.

 
Yeah, any issue that's affecting the user's workflow should be addressed quickly. I only referred to this particular bug, whose behavior isn't really affecting anyone's workflow but is just 'strange and unnecessary'.

I've had further thoughts. This is pure speculation. I hope this doesn't happen with other functionality in the background. i.e. When a command has been given (e.g. delete all selected tracks) a for to next loop iterates and looks at all the tracks to see if they are selected or not. There should be instead some array map or pointer system set up whereby Sonar has stored in it's memory what tracks are selected at any one time. That's what it should be looking at when looping through track selections, which will mean processing time isn't wasted testing for conditions. Again pure speculation, this behaviour might just be exclusive with track templates.

You've pasted the entire handbook or most of it. Don't you think I might be just a tad familiar with it by now? Please copy and paste the bit where you move issues to another forum when given clear steps to reproduce?

You should only do that when it needs troubleshooting or it no longer belongs in the forum such as difficulties reproducing or system specific issues.

Are problem reports now being handled by a committee of hosts or do you guys actually follow the process that cakewalk has given to you?

Bob its not the end of the world, but you see my point there's nothing there in handbook you can specifically point to. Launching a complaint with cakewalk would be totally ott. I gave a real problem report with clear steps to repro and it got moved out before an attempt of validation that's all. There are good scenarios to do it, I am a fan of 'eyeballs' but this didn't need it.... I'm also a fan of sticking to process cakewalk supplies as it protects all of us. Anyway so what we will all live.. Thats enough of me b#tching... Well let's hope... Cheers ;)

Ok then the discussion continues...
 

robert_e_bone
"If your thread is better suited for another forum,

 
How can clear steps be better suited for another forum? All that needed to happen was for it to be validated. What the handbook is actually saying here that is that when somebody posts something off topic it may be moved. I did not post off topic. So what's actual reason do you give here (without having to quote the handbook yet again)?
 

robert_e_bone
or is found to be an issue that can be resolved through troubleshooting, your thread may be moved to the appropriate forum."'

 
What needed troubleshooting? There was ABSOLUTELY NO troubleshooting to be done here. I filed clear problem report with extremely clear steps which can be reproduced by anybody, even a QA dept. All that needed to happen was for it to be validated, I supply a CWBRN afterwards and then that's that. Could not be easier.
 

robert_e_bone
The above indicates a thread may end up getting moved.  I determined that at the point of its initial submission, the thread better belonged in the Sonar forum.

 
On the basis of what? You don't give any specific reason whatsoever other than quoting handbook.
 

robert_e_bone
"A problem has been identified and is reproducible by another member of the community. -> Once a problem has been submitted through the Problem Reporter,  "
 
The above refers to someone else reproducing the issue, and then talks about the issue being submitted through the Problem Reporter.

 
Let me give the full quote without paraphrased heading used for the other bullet points, it could not be stated any better:
 

Feedback Loop Handbook
Once a problem has been submitted through the Problem Reporter, then the forum host, a Cakewalk staffer, or the person posting will modify the title in the format "[CWBRN-566789] - Topic title". 

 
It speaks for itself. Observe the clear order of the process.
 

robert_e_bone
"Other users are unable to reproduce the issue. - Now, there are a few cases in which a forum thread becomes non-productive, and may be locked or moved:"
 
The above talks about if nobody else reproduces the issue, and indicates there are a few cases where a thread may get moved.

 
Irrelevant to this issue. You moved the thread when nobody had even tried to reproduce the issue. When somebody did (after you had moved it) it was immediately reproducible. You seem to be  getting the word "reproduce" muddled with the word "respond".
 

robert_e_bone
In the numbered list of cases they offer as to why a thread may get moved, they have this:
 
"3] The issue is not reproducible by other forum members. After some discussion, if you are fairly sure what you’re experiencing is indeed unexpected behavior or malfunctioning software, please send us a problem report via our Problem Reporter.  "


In the above, they indicate a case may get moved if it is not reproducible by other forum members, which, at the time of your thread's initial submission was the case - nobody else had reproduced the issue at that time.

 
Nobody had even responded to the thread which was up for just 8 hours. You still seem to be getting the words "reproduced" with "responded"? In order find that something is reproducible or not you actually have to try to do it!!
 
You seemed to have missed the "After some discussion" bit as well....!
 

robert_e_bone
Further, they also clearly ask for the issue to be sent through the Problem Reports process, which had also not been done when the initial thread was posted.  (They even added a link directly to the Problem Reports process).

 
Read the original post#1. I wrote "Validate and I'll get a CWBRN." Where does it say in the handbook that a problem report number is required before a thread gets created in this forum? Nowhere of course! 
 
If you think a CWBRN issue is needed everytime somebody creates a thread in these forums, you are totally missing the whole ruddy point of these forums! The reason why these forums exist is to get issues validated by the community so we don't bother Cakewalk with dud problem reports. Once that happens you create a problem report in the problem reporter and state it in the thread. Ideally you link this thread to the problem report submitted to cakewalk (this is not in guidelines but advisable). Otherwise there is absolutely no point in having these forums isn't there? You would just use the problem reporter.

The ONLY time a CWBRN is absolutely required is AFTER VALIDATION otherwise the issue cannot progress in these forums. And I supplied one straight afterwards. If I hadn't supplied one after validation within a reasonable period of time I would expect the issue to be closed or moved out... not before. Regardless I (as others) am free to log an issue at any time and state the CWBRN at any time if I so choose of course, the handbook accommodates for this as well as you know. 
 

robert_e_bone
So, again, those were the reasons I moved the thread.  Subsequently, another forum member posted a validation of the issue, and you yourself edited the thread's subject line to add the CWBRN from the Problem Reports process (though you also obliterated the initial subject line with an all-caps demand that the thread get moved - I restored the original issue subject text, in non-caps, to go along with the newly-generated CWBRN number, and I indicated I would be moving the thread back to Problem Reports.

 
You imply I did something wrong here. I edited it in the SONAR forum and not the problem reports forum! The handbook guidelines apply only to the problem reports forum. Once you had moved the problem report across I would have happily renamed the subject title according to the problem report handbook guidelines. The reason why I did it was I was fed up with ticketing and PM'ing people the last time around. I made it stand out so you could see it, I think that's fair enough and not against any guidelines whatsoever.
 

robert_e_bone
I then again did as I said I would do, and moved the thread back into the Problem Reports forum, and in addition left a placeholder thread/link in Sonar to point back to the new location of the thread in the Problem Reports forum, and sent another email to you to let you know about it, AND posted in the thread to indicate I had done the move and again explained why.

 
Yes you moved a thread back to where it should have been and renamed the subject title as per guidelines for that forum. Thankyou. I didn't get an email but then nor was I expecting one, thanks anyway.  So far you haven't given any specific reason though related to the actual issue, just a load of handbook quotes.
 

robert_e_bone
I would hope at this point that you either get it and move on, or that you file a complaint.  I have now explained several times what I did and why, and provided the appropriate guiding directional info from Cakewalk on the matter.  Should a similar thread get posted, I would react the same way.

 
I have filed an extremely clear problem report ready to be validated in the forums. Instead it got moved over to the Sonar forums to be validated. It appears what has happened is that you've invented a few steps which are not in the handbook.

1) A CWBRN is NOT required until the issue is validated.
2) If a problem report is entirely clear for somebody to follow you don't move it out of these forums until at the very least somebody else has validated it or you can see pretty clearly it is a system config issue.
3) When a thread is created there isn't an 8 hour time limit for somebody to respond. Responding is NOT the same reproducing. These forums are here to validate issues!
 
From my angle let's summarise, if I can't give very good steps to reproduce the first place I post is in the Sonar forums. If I can give extremely good steps to reproduce, that is a valid problem report, I create a thread in the problem reports forum to be validated by another user. Once they validate it I then go off and get a CWBRN number. If they don't validate then somebody asks for more steps and/or they decide to throw it out in the forums for my eyeballs if they think it is an issue that needs troubleshooting.
 
... and that's entirely compatible with the process laid out in the handbook.
 
The only time you would have wanted to move my thread into the Sonar forums is if the thread is off topic, I hadn't given good steps to reproduce, or I had some system specific issue. I had none of those.
 

robert_e_bone
As an observation, from many prior occasions, it seems to be incredibly difficult, or perhaps impossible, for you to let go of some perceived slight or singling of you out, or difference of opinion on something, so I am guessing this is going to continue to get dragged out, but that seems quite unnecessary.  

 
Read my previous post, doesn't seem to imply it does it?

There's really no need to turn the simplest conversation into a personal crusade.
 
You found a trivial but reproducible bug. It found its way into the Problem Reports forum after a brief detour.
 
The End.

This thread is no longer ABOUT the problem which was reported.  The problem has been reported, there's a CWBRN number, the rest of this is irrelevant to the thread's purpose.