in bug 1241760 I filed a ticket to make groking each rule and its relation to other rules. Think of that as 'read only' rule UI improvements. this bug's motivation is for groking the impact of 'writing/mutating' rules. both bugs are help footguns. I was thinking about a toast/alert prompt when you hit 'update' and make a change to a rule or 'create' a new one. this prompt would tell you all the rules this affects. e.g. business logic: # pseudo code rules_affected = {} updated_rule = update_rule(rule_id, new_rule_values) for rule in all_rules: rules_affected[rule['id']] = [] if updated_rule['product'] == rule['product']: if updated_rule['channel'] == rule['channel']: if updated_rule['priority'] <= rule['priority']: # compare platforms, versions etc over multiple rules_affected[rule['id']] = "update requests from {product} {channel} {platforms} will now use {updated_rule['id']} instead of rule{'id'}" granted the above is not the way to implement this and is silly pseudo code, it shows how we could have balrog do the thinking that our brainz normally have to do. Ben pointed out that while this could help mitigate footguns, it could easily introduce new ones if we are not good about testing and coverage of the implementation.

While porting a bunch of watersheds from central to aurora, I accidently clicked 'update' instead of 'duplicate' on one of the watersheds, effectively killing the existing central watershed[1]! Having silly humans like me being able to cause such dramatic changes without tests is bad. This bug, arguably, would have saved me as it would have alerted all of the central changes I would be making, even though I was assuming I was only affecting aurora. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1319167#c30