CDR Tickets

BZDATETIME::2009-11-17 17:58:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::1

Is it correct that these comments should only be listed on those two reports but should be suppressed for all other output?

In terms of the output, would you expect these comments to be displayed as a separate column on the reports mentioned or as part of the Protocol Link/Ref column?

BZDATETIME::2009-12-02 15:29:34
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::2

Here are a few suggestions for the Summaries with Protocols Links/Refs Report for discussion.

USER SUPPLIED PARAMETERS/Options
1. We want the ability to run the report for individual summaries either by CDR ID or by title. (This is in addition to running the report for all summaries.)

2. We also want to add a date range in two situations:

A. Report summaries whose referenced protocols have changed status within a period of time– For example, if the status of NCCTG-55885 which is referenced in Summary CDR ID 585822 has changed from Active to Closed in the last 30 days, report it.

OR

B. Report summaries that have not been reviewed (protocol ref review) in the last 30 days, for example. That is, if the summary has been reviewed in the last 30 days, then don’t display it.

3. Add ability to generate report in MS Excel format.

DEFAULT BEHAVIOR
4. Display summaries in chronological order - display protocols (IDs) from the top of the summary down to the bottom. Currently the report does not follow a chronological order within a summary.

5. Display subsection titles in the report. That is, create a new column that lists the subsection titles where the protocol is referenced.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-10 15:32:20
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::3

As requested, here are some options (not necessarily mutually exclusive):

1. Modify schema to allow Comment elements interspersed with link elements

Drawbacks:

• no structural connection between comment and link element

• comments get mixed in with large sea of comments in summaries
  Advantages:

• easy to implement

2. Implement new elements (ProtocolComment and CitationComment) as requested

Drawbacks:

• no structural connection between comment and link element
  Advantages:

• it's what the user asked for

• easy to implement

• distintuishes these comments from other general comments

3. Use XML comments

Drawbacks:

• can't be placed inside linking element, so

• no structural connection between comment and link element

• more difficult to control display in XMetaL
  Advantages:

• already supported

4. Add option comment attribute to linking element

Drawbacks:

• data entry interface for attributes not well suited to long text
  Advantages:

• easily implemented

• structural connection between comment and link element

5. Comment attribute with dialog box for data entry (variant of #4)

Drawbacks:

• none
  Advantages:

• better interface for entering comments

6. Add LastReviewed date attribute to linking element (orthogonal feature)

Drawbacks:

• doesn't address original request directly
  Advantages:

• easy to implement

• supports reports on links that haven't been reviewed in N days

7. Restructure links to use complex block instead of single element

Drawbacks:

• complicates structure

• requires touching lots of existing software (expensive, risky)
  Advantages:

• structural connection between comment and linking element

• allows for multiple comments on link

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 17:44:15
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::4

I discussed these options with the summaries staff at CIAT. Options 2, 5 and 4 (in order of preference) were the most appealing to them. Generally, the implementation of any one of these3 options will be good for them. They were particularly interested in:

1. The ability to capture date of review.

2. The length of the comments (They do not want to be limited to a small number of characters unless it is absolutely necessary.

3. The ability to differentiate review comments from other comments by using different colors etc.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 18:09:55
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::5

(In reply to comment #4)
> ...They were particularly interested in:
>
> 1. The ability to capture date of review. ....

It would probably be a good idea to elaborate on what is meant by 'capture' in this context. Do they expect that machine processing will understand and be able to use the "captured" dates? (If so, I'm puzzled by their selected options for implementing this request.) Or is it sufficient that users have the ability to enter any text they want, which would of course include the ability to record dates? (If so, I'm not sure why they went out of their way to mention this type of data specifically. Am I missing something subtle here?)

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 18:24:42
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::6

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > ...They were particularly interested in:
> >
> > 1. The ability to capture date of review. ....
>
> It would probably be a good idea to elaborate on what is meant by 'capture' in
> this context. Do they expect that machine processing will understand and be
> able to use the "captured" dates? (If so, I'm puzzled by their selected
> options for implementing this request.) Or is it sufficient that users have
> the ability to enter any text they want, which would of course include the
> ability to record dates? (If so, I'm not sure why they went out of their way
> to mention this type of data specifically. Am I missing something subtle
> here?)

In comment #2 (and number 2 on the list - option B), users have expressed the need to run the report according to a date range. The mentioning of date in comment 4 is in relation to that. So a date element or attribute that could be processed by machine is preferred. The use of the word 'capture' is simply to 'enter' either manually (like we currently do in the CDR) or if the report is able to determine when a review is done, that will also be good.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 18:34:02
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::7

So options #4 and #5 would not be acceptable after all, right?

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 18:43:05
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::8

(In reply to comment #7)
> So options #4 and #5 would not be acceptable after all, right?

I guess so. We were also concerned about the fact that in option 2, there is no structural connection between comment and link element. Could proximity to the linking element be useful or helpful for the purposes of generating the report?

BZDATETIME::2010-01-07 07:05:11
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::9

(In reply to comment #8)

> Could proximity to the linking element be useful or helpful for the
> purposes of generating the report?

Not the cleanest solution, but I expect Volker will be able to make it work.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-08 14:23:03
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::10

Bob wanted me at the status meeting to assign this to him. His wish is my command. :-)

BZDATETIME::2010-01-11 11:59:06
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::11

My understanding of the decision taken at Thursday's status meeting was that the users decided to go with a combination of options #5 and #6 (see comment #3): add a comment attribute to the linking element with a popup dialog window for viewing/editing the comment, and add a LastReviewed date attribute to the element. Is this what everyone else remembers?

BZDATETIME::2010-01-13 09:50:02
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::12

(In reply to comment #11)
> My understanding of the decision taken at Thursday's status meeting was that
> the users decided to go with a combination of options #5 and #6 (see comment
> #3): add a comment attribute to the linking element with a popup dialog window
> for viewing/editing the comment, and add a LastReviewed date attribute to the
> element. Is this what everyone else remembers?

Yes. This is what I have in my notes.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-20 15:53:41
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::13

OK, I have modified the schema so that the four elements ProtocolRef, ProtocolLink, CitationRef, and CitationLink all allow optional comment and LastReviewed attributes, and I have implemented the context menu command for editing the comment in a popup window when you are in one of these elements in a summary document (or just viewing it if you don't have the document checked out). As a bonus I added another context menu command for inserting today's date as the value of the LastReviewed attribute of the current element. These enhancements have been installed on Mahler and are ready for users to begin testing. I'd like to have feedback before I proceed any further with modifications to the reports.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-21 10:44:38
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::14

(In reply to comment #13)
> OK, I have modified the schema so that the four elements ProtocolRef,
> ProtocolLink, CitationRef, and CitationLink all allow optional comment and
> LastReviewed attributes, and I have implemented the context menu command for
> editing the comment in a popup window when you are in one of these elements in
> a summary document (or just viewing it if you don't have the document checked
> out). As a bonus I added another context menu command for inserting today's
> date as the value of the LastReviewed attribute of the current element. These
> enhancements have been installed on Mahler and are ready for users to begin
> testing. I'd like to have feedback before I proceed any further with
> modifications to the reports.

I have reviewed the changes and they look really good. We will do additional testing/training before this is promoted. Thank you!

BZDATETIME::2010-01-26 15:04:48
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::15

(In reply to comment #14)

> I have reviewed the changes and they look really good. We will do additional
> testing/training before this is promoted. Thank you!

We have completed training and testing this enhancement. Users are happy with the implementation. I think it OK to promote to Bach

BZDATETIME::2010-01-27 09:33:08
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::16

Promoted to Bach; please check (and close if OK).

BZDATETIME::2010-01-28 11:11:25
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::17

(In reply to comment #16)
> Promoted to Bach; please check (and close if OK).

I see the attributes in the attributes inspector but not in the context menu.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-28 11:41:02
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::18

Give it another try (log out of XMetaL and back in first).

BZDATETIME::2010-01-28 11:51:21
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::19

(In reply to comment #18)
> Give it another try (log out of XMetaL and back in first).

Works now. Thank you!
Issue closed.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-10 14:16:02
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::20

Bob, I am re-opening this issue because the following error I get on Mahler:

I get the following error (on Mahler) when I use the macro or when I try to
manually set the LastReviewed attribute.

Line 218, Column 8
Description: Object expected

BZDATETIME::2010-05-10 15:07:20
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::21

Bug fixed.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-10 16:39:45
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::22

(In reply to comment #21)
> Bug fixed.

Verified. Re-closing this issue.