Bug 164937 - MAR-based update message, let the user know what kind of update is taking place
Summary: MAR-based update message, let the user know what kind of update is taking place
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LibreOffice (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
24.8.1.2 release
Hardware: All Windows (All)
: medium trivial
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: Automatic-Updater
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2025-01-29 15:32 UTC by Eyal Rozenberg
Modified: 2025-01-31 15:27 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Eyal Rozenberg 2025-01-29 15:32:37 UTC
Sometimes, when you start LibreOffice (on Windows at least), you get a dialog with a inspecific progress bar, telling you:

"Please wait while LibreOffice is being updated"

it would be useful to the user if they were told what kind of update is taking place. Is it a new version being installed? Is it a profile migration? Something else? 

I would have liked to read something like:

"Please wait while your LibreOffice profile is being updated for version 24.8"

or

"Please wait while your LibreOffice updates itself to version 24.8"


or whatever other action is taking place.


I am not suggested the user be innundated with technical information, but right now, the dialog is not really telling us much of anything. Specifically, there is no indication of whether it's a 5-second action, 5-minute action or 5-hour action.
Comment 1 V Stuart Foote 2025-01-29 15:54:05 UTC
Currently just a simple static string in external/onlineupdate/updater.ini with MAR-based updates enabled by default for release builds from 24.8.1 onward [1].

"Please wait while we update your installation."

Imagine that string could receive version details, with reparse as each MAR-based patch is applied.

But is it really much of an issue as to need the additional effort?

IMHO => WF

=-ref-=
[1] https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/c/core/+/172335
Comment 2 Eyal Rozenberg 2025-01-29 23:11:52 UTC
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #1)
> But is it really much of an issue as to need the additional effort?

One of the things we dislike about closed-source software is that it does a lot of things behind your back. If the user did not themselves just trigger whatever action is being taken, the prompt sounds like: "Please be paralyzed while things you have no control over and don't know you approve of are done to your installed software"

That's offputting. The user's specific knowledge is of minor benefit; maintaining user _trust_ is the bigger one.
Comment 3 Xisco Faulí 2025-01-30 00:02:03 UTC
@Cloph, I thought you might be interested in this issue
Comment 4 Heiko Tietze 2025-01-30 12:25:20 UTC
It's planned to show a website after/during the update, which is under control by marketing. At least I'd recommend to moderate the quantity and quality of information.
Comment 5 V Stuart Foote 2025-01-30 12:56:03 UTC
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #4)
> It's planned to show a website after/during the update, which is under
> control by marketing. At least I'd recommend to moderate the quantity and
> quality of information.

That's a horrible UX!

   Launch a program, 
   wait while a web browser is launched/or focus stolen, 
   read inane marketing copy, 
   close browser frame, 
   repeat (for each patch cycle???), 
   and finally arrive with focus on the LibreOffice module or Start Center.  

Ugg, just No!

Please keep MAR patch updates lightweight, with simple the pop-up info message--annotate that if possible based on the MAR-based patch signature--but don't disrupt the LibreOffice startup more than minimally necessary to apply the patches.
Comment 6 Heiko Tietze 2025-01-31 13:29:47 UTC
Alternative solution in bug 159573 was not welcome (and would be quite a burden for l10n).
Comment 7 Eyal Rozenberg 2025-01-31 15:27:27 UTC
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #6)
> Alternative solution in bug 159573 was not welcome (and would be quite a
> burden for l10n).

It's not the _details_ of the change that I'm missing it's just the most general level. Just enough for the user to get rough understanding of what's going on. But will go read that. On cursory reading of 159573 I don't think I see something like that suggested... can you mention the specific comment number?