Welcome! This forum has a treasure trove of great info – Scouters helping Scouters! Just a heads up, though - all content, information, and opinions shared on this forum are those of the author, not the BSA.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA

Scouting Forums

My.scouting application bug take 2

When we last saw our hero, he was complaining that he was paying the next year when he “multipled” in a Pack. It then came out that that was a poorly communicated added feature and that the online re-charter would take that into account and show a credit as a pre-paid adult. It doesn’t. Our registrar can’t keep up as it is, so submitting this bug to her may not help. One reason why I went forward with this is I didn’t believe it would be bug free, but would have been happy if it was. So, it isn’t bug free. Can someone “in the know” report this? I MAY be the first, but I won’t be the last.

image

1 Like

ROFL :rofl:

Thanks for giving me a good chuckle, Matt.

I heard this in full “voice” in my brain.

@RickHillenbrand Any chance you can look into this bug (pass it on to the powers that be)? I may be one of the early real world test cases of a pre-paid adult. It isn’t giving me credit for it.

2 Likes

From the PM… Can you help? :

Rick – We’ll need sufficient information for Mike to have it validated if this Scouter registered with OLR and is PrePaid. That said, this could be a timing issue with Internet Rechartering depending on when payment was made.

Specifically, if a registrant is added new to the current, active charter but the processor already did Load Roster, the registrant is not there. If the processor uses Update Unit Roster, it will bring in the new registrant. We will confirm if that includes Advance Payment (Pre Paid).

Mr. Johnson may be the first, but there’s no way to verify when OLR payment and registration was done without more detail on his activity and the unit being renewed. Thanks, Tom

1 Like

Yes! Thanks.

The payment was made on 11/3. It was $0 for this year and $42 for Future Year.

I have done “Update Unit Roster” multiple times with no change. I just did it again to make sure, no one shows up as pre-paid.

The unit I multipled in was Pack 4201 in Bay-Lakes Council 635.
The original unit is Troop 1401 in Bay-Lakes Council 635.
My BSA ID is 135549993.
I attached my receipt for the multiple payment.

Let me know of any additional info they may need/want.

MRJ Pack 4201 Multiple plus 2021.pdf (26.6 KB) info that may be needed.

1 Like

@Matt.Johnson this continues to be worked by the folks at National. With the development team working nights now PLUS the long weekend, it may take a day or so for ScoutNet development news.

1 Like

Thanks for the update. This is the last item on our charter to do list, so we have time to figure this out.

1 Like

@RickHillenbrand Any word on this bug? Just wondering when I should check back in without being too antsy.

1 Like

Checking today… people should be back from Thanksgiving and use or lose.

2 Likes

It ending up being the opposite of what I thought it would be.

For 2020: I was registered in Troop A before any of the complexities started. When I registered (or “multipled” as they say) in Pack B, I paid zero for 2020, but full paid fully for 2021. Unbeknownst to me, this future payment made me “primary” in Pack B for the next year.

For 2021: I recorded myself as “multiple” in Troop A. When Pack B goes to recharter, they should see me as a “prepayment” $0 charge.

So, bottom line, another situation for the FAQ.

Q: What if I register (or multiple) with a second unit, for no cost, and are required to prepay at that time for the next year?

A: When recharter happens, which ever unit you were registering for when you prepaid becomes your primary unit (even if last year they were secondary). That unit should see a $0 charge and you will be listed as prepaid. In your other units, you should recharter as multiple (even if they were your primary unit last year). This is regardless of which unit recharters first.

@Matt.Johnson is this really FAQ … or is it operating in a non-intuitive way and a change should be made/planned? Only asking to better understand what your expectations were “going in” so to speak. I would guess if there were a response/message and/or status somewhere that reflected the ‘future state’ when and provided an option when the action was taking place that an FAQ item could be avoided.

I’m a fan of documentation, don’t get me wrong. Just not sticking with a process that doesn’t work “as expected” as opposed to “as designed”.

Hoping folks keep up the great work, thanks!

I agree it is non-intuitive. If I “multiple” in a unit, I should keep my “home unit” and have the “multiple” pick me up. I have no faith in them “fixing it”, but I have some faith in @RickHillenbrand being able to update an FAQ.

1 Like

Hypothetical question, @Matt.Johnson … let’s say there was an open issue queue like I’m sure you’ve seen elsewhere; would that help restore your faith in folks that have responsibility to “fix it”? Even if that wasn’t able to be done for 7, 8 months… Would the fact you could see the queue help repair that trust?

It’s an idea I’ve been holding on to in my mind - just haven’t had opportunity to discuss. We can shift to an alternate topic if there’s any interest or message me directly.

I also have full faith in @RickHillenbrand and I know he’ll do the needful.

I would love to see something in a queue. It would give me faith it will get fixed.

1 Like

I’m following this thread, and will make sure the two involved PMs (Internet rechartering and Online Registration) are aware and addressing all the nuanced variations that seem to not be properly addressed the system currently.

1 Like

@Matt.Johnson & @MrAdamJohn I appreciate your trust in my perseverance… I hope I don’t let you down. (lol). I have forwarded the following link for the FAQ to the PM to get updated. (Note that the date in the document is 4 years old. The PM has only had this role for less than a year and might have challenges finding the source document… but that is another issue.)

1 Like

I guess it was this one. But this is specific to transfers and multiples. It would be good to expand to all and update the one you linked to today. Either would work.

Here is your mention of that one on Nov 19. My.scouting now a full service application system

1 Like

Curious if there’s an easier way to get more substantial feedback to the PM? I’ve been in UEX/software for 20+ years and have to share - this ScoutBook experience has been very poor. Latest issue is a “P1” bug: data deletion.

  1. Log into ScoutBook, and stay logged in for a time period that exceeds the auto-logout (this in itself is a bug, as NO notification is given to the user that there is a time limit, or when its reached)
  2. Return to your computer and click “messages”, compose, then try to send a message
  3. Observe user is dumped back to the main screen - logged out - and with their message DELETED.
  4. EXPECTED: when ANY UEX element is clicked after a lengthy pause, the site should attempt a refresh automatically to ensure the user is still logged in. Alternately, as done on so many other sites, present a modal to the user SHOWING them they will be logged out in “x” minutes and allow them to continue. IF they do get auto-logged out, inform the user that that happened too. Argh - I hate trying to recompose emails that I spent time putting together… looks like (again), I’ll have to stage the info elsewhere, then copy/paste it in (and I will share - users really shouldn’t be forced to come up with these types of workarounds).

I agree with your assessment. The Scoutbook add in does have the timeout box you are talking about. It is odd that it is not in the core product.

AND - it may only be visible with certain browsers if it is visible at all. there should be a sanity check on top Windows (Chrome) and top Mac (Safari) browser for this tool before new features are released.