Make WordPress Core

Opened 5 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

Last modified 5 years ago

#47295 closed enhancement (invalid)

Site-Health - initial experience

Reported by: rrrrobb's profile rrrrobb Owned by:
Milestone: Priority: normal
Severity: normal Version: 5.2
Component: Site Health Keywords: site-health
Focuses: Cc:


Before I get into the core purpose of this Ticket I want to first commend the group involved with the Site-Health project. I can understand the concept and its need. I also can understand the amount of work involved to make something like this happen. I in no way want to cast negative light on the work you have all put into this so far and hope for your great success in this endeavor. I also do not mean to come off negative, nasty, mean, challenging, etc, so you have no need to be defensive. This is totally meant to shine a light on how the current implementation can be interpreted.

However I have just waisted the better part of 3 days tracking down answers to results in the "Critical issues" and "Recommended improvements" sections of the "Site-Health" area.

I upgraded my development site to v5.2 and had no previous experience with the Site-Health option, plug-in, whatever.

I made the assumption that the criteria to acquire these results was more advanced than it currently is. I am getting things marked as, broad term errors, for "Critical issues" and "Recommended improvements", which in fact were not errors at all.

If you tell me that I have a "Critical issue" I assume I have an issue that is critical to the health and wellbeing of my installation. Why else would it be notated as a "Critical issue". Furthermore if you tell me that you have "Recommended improvements" I assume that they actually are improvements.

Once again this in't meant negatively - simply the thought process as it was happening.

The "errors"
Critical issues
The REST API encountered an error - Performance
Your site could not complete a loopback request - Performance

Recommended improvements
One or more recommended modules are missing - Performance
A scheduled event has failed - Performance
Background updates may not be working properly - Security

Remember I had assumed that the criteria for these "errors" was more advanced than it is, so I was approaching these as if I actually had a real issue with my settings. I was searching and researching, reading all sorts of bad advice and incorrect information all over the net until I stumbled on a post in here about this very subject. Then the light went on. There was nothing wrong with my install. The problem was with the criteria used to display the "error" messages to me. The way they were being displayed caused me to assume that I had some really serious issues going on.

Background updates may not be working properly - Security
there is nothing wrong, I consciously choose to update when I am ready. I prefer it that way. I have the ability to do so, and should. It is a supported and accepted practice and should not be displayed as if there is something wrong with doing so. If you feel it necessary to place a message about it then simply say "are you aware that you have auto update turned of? if you would like to activate it then click here and follow the provided instructions. Otherwise ignore this message and have a nice day. And don't calculate the state of this in the % of health indicator, or at least place a check mark box to indicate that I am aware that it is off and if I indicate that I am aware then it doesn't count toward the % indicator. Frankly I do not care one way or another about the indicator but it seems pointless to have it there if it isn't going to be accurate.

A scheduled event has failed - Performance
Yea, no kidding, I am running a development server and have something shut off that isn't necessary at this time. Again an are you aware of this message with a yes I am aware check box, and again once checked no further calculation to the % would be nice.

One or more recommended modules are missing - Performance
imagick, I am not going to say anything about this because I feel there has been enough discussion elsewhere on the subject. Again an are you aware of this message with a yes I am aware check box, and again once checked no further calculation to the % would be nice.

Finally, these two
Critical issues
The REST API encountered an error - Performance
Your site could not complete a loopback request - Performance
These are the ones that caused my entire issue, ate up my time, and I can't wrap my mind around why they are the way they currently are.

The information I have gathered on this states that a separate call is being made to check the validity of the site install.... really, on a development server. I get it on a live install, but on a development server I can't figure out why this would even be considered. There are many ways to know if it is development even without asking. Private network address assigned to protected name reservations comes to mind, or simply asking and another check mark, % removal, etc as before.

I really like the concept, I hope for great things to come from it, and I appreciate all the time and hard work put into it. However I fear a "boy crying wolf" perspective may happen if it isn't managed carefully. I can also see the validity for the ability to turn this feature off and on as needed, not having it running all the time. Maybe make it a plug-in. ;) JK-humor, lighten up.

Again - I mean no disrespect - there is no need to be defensive or even respond. After reading the message I stumbled upon I felt it necessary to state my experience. I am sure I am not alone, however I believe the vast majority will not take the time to come here and tell their story. The comment I read basically stated that if nothing was mentioned about this subject then the individual was going to assume there was no issue and that all further information should be placed in their own tickets. Thus I felt compelled to write this, because there is an issue.

Again please do not bother to respond, I will not be checking for responses nor will I be making any further comment. This was simply to respond to the before mentioned remark.

by the way, what % of installs is manual update? How long does it take to achieve enough installs to actually know how something like this is being received? and how often do sites skip entire versions due to frequency of the manual install? just pointing out reasons why in 3+ weeks ya might not have enough installs to make a broad sweeping assumption that there is nothing to see here.

Change History (3)

#1 @ianbelanger
5 years ago

  • Keywords site-health dev-feedback added

Hi @rrrrobb, thanks for your honest feedback about the new site health feature. We will be iterating on this new feature in future releases and I am sure that your feedback will be taken into consideration.

For the time being, there is a plugin in the .org repo which allows you to remove the site health tests that you do not wish to run it's very lightweight and easy to use.

#2 @desrosj
5 years ago

  • Keywords dev-feedback needs-design-feedback removed
  • Milestone Awaiting Review deleted
  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from new to closed

I am going to close this one out. While your honest feedback is appreciated, there is nothing directly actionable from the ticket description. Any change requests would need to be broken out individually and explored from all angles.

The reporter also stated they have no intention of following up with any responses.

#3 @spacedmonkey
5 years ago

  • Component changed from Administration to Site Health
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.