For the True to the Core session at Dreamforce, @Paul Ginsberg submitted the following question that we didn't have time to answer: "What's the criteria for something being a Known Issue?"
Generally, if a customer reports an issue that is investigated by our engineering/product teams and is found to be reproducible, a bug is logged and a corresponding Known Issues entry is created.
However, Paul (and others) pointed out that sometimes it feels less clear about whether something becomes a Known Issue when it's investigated and the result is it's described as a platform limitation. As part of the @* Known Issues * program, we'll be looking as situations like this (as well as when customers are directed to create an idea in a support/Known Issues context).
In speaking to leaders in support and product, there's a general philosophy that if there's a perceived bug/issue from our customers and our response is that it's a limitation, then we should ensure that limitation is documented and point you to it. There's work to do here.
Examples of when you're left scratching your head help. Let us know here or via direct message if you have other situations that we should work with the various teams to help smooth out.
And while I'm here, let me plug that as of a few hours ago, the new IdeaExchange is now live. Take it for a spin and let us know what you think. We'll be taking certain elements (i.e., improved search and filtering) and applying it to Known Issues.
Hi @Scott Allan,
How do we handle a response from support which is the following?
- "I have confirmed it with the R&D team. This is considered a GAP in the functionality, hence it will be implemented as a user story.
- Since this is not considered as a limitation hence a public article or a KI has not been created."
Issue is that deploying a list view, whose API already exists, creates a new one with identical API name, rather than updating the existing.
I have multiple times pointed out, that they need to Stay True to the Core, emphasizing this post, but it seems that they ignore it.
Case #40942265