CDR Tickets

Issue Number 3178
Summary Summaries with Protocol Links/Refs report bug
Created 2010-06-17 15:32:43
Issue Type Bug
Submitted By Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]
Assigned To Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]
Status Closed
Resolved 2010-09-01 13:11:49
Resolution Fixed
Path /home/bkline/backups/jira/ocecdr/issue.107506
Description

BZISSUE::4865
BZDATETIME::2010-06-17 15:32:43
BZCREATOR::William Osei-Poku
BZASSIGNEE::Volker Englisch
BZQACONTACT::William Osei-Poku

There appears to be a bug in the Summaries with Protocol Links/Refs report. The report tends to repeat the ‘LastReviewedStatus’ and the ‘Comment’ of one of the Protocol refs in the other Protocol ref. Please see individual reports for 62929 and 62907.

In 62907 for example, the first occurrence of ECOG-1879 displays correctly in the report in terms of the ‘Comment’ and the ‘LastReviewedStatus’.
However, the second occurrence displays the correct status of 'Completed' but the ‘Comment’ is not correct. It is not displaying exactly what the user has entered. It appears to be displaying the comment in the next Protocol ref - SWOG-8325. As mentioned earlier, in other places, the LastReviewedStatus displayed was also incorrect even though the user ran the macro. For example, in the same report for 62907, the third occurrence of ECOG-1879 (fourth row), the LastReviewedStatus displays as ‘Closed’ even though the user has set it to be ‘Completed’.

Comment entered 2010-06-18 18:47:47 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-06-18 18:47:47
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::1

Apparently, we had only tested this report with single ProtocolRef/Link elements within one section. When multiple ProtocolRef elements were listed within one summary section only one (the last) of the ProtocolRef elements was displayed properly. The information for the others was repeated.

This has been fixed with
SummariesWithProtocolLinks.py - R9717

Please review on MAHLER.

Comment entered 2010-06-21 10:45:23 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-06-21 10:45:23
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::2

(In reply to comment #1)
> Apparently, we had only tested this report with single ProtocolRef/Link
> elements within one section. When multiple ProtocolRef elements were listed
> within one summary section only one (the last) of the ProtocolRef elements was
> displayed properly. The information for the others was repeated.
>
> This has been fixed with
> SummariesWithProtocolLinks.py - R9717
>
> Please review on MAHLER.

Verified on Mahler. Thanks!. Please promote to Bach.

Comment entered 2010-06-21 11:06:00 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-06-21 11:06:00
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::3

The program has been copied to FRANCK and BACH:
SummariesWithProtocolLinks.py - R9717

Please verify on BACH and close this bug.

Comment entered 2010-06-21 14:08:08 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-06-21 14:08:08
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::4

(In reply to comment #3)
> The program has been copied to FRANCK and BACH:
> SummariesWithProtocolLinks.py - R9717
>
> Please verify on BACH and close this bug.

Verified on Bach. Looks good now. Issue Closed. Thanks!

Comment entered 2010-06-23 17:16:44 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-06-23 17:16:44
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::5

It looks like when a protocol is referenced more than once in a summary section, the comment for one of them is repeated for the others. Please see 62856 in Mahler. CLB-9011 is referenced three times in the summary with different comments but only the comment from one of the refs is displayed for the other two.

Comment entered 2010-06-25 12:30:07 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-06-25 12:30:07
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::6

Volker:
Will you be able to take a look at this before you leave for vacation?

Comment entered 2010-06-25 12:34:46 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-06-25 12:34:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::7

No, I won't.
This report is pretty involved and it probably will take me a while to debug it.
I've been concentrating on making sure Bob and Alan will have all the information they need in case something goes wrong with production while I'm out.

Comment entered 2010-07-19 10:41:23 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-07-19 10:41:23
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::8

(In reply to comment #5)
> CLB-9011 is referenced three times in the summary with
> different comments but only the comment from one of the refs is displayed for
> the other two.

I would have expected that the comments for one and the same link would be identical like "Protocol status is now closed" or something like that.
I guess that's not the case.

Comment entered 2010-08-17 15:23:49 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-08-17 15:23:49
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::9

The report following report has been updated:
SummariesWithProtocolLinks.py

The original report did not expect multiple ProtocolRef/Link elements within one section and therefore it overwrote the information for the first REF/LINK when populating the second, overwriting the first and second when populating the third, etc.

This has been fixed and is ready for review on MAHLER.

Comment entered 2010-08-23 18:01:43 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-08-23 18:01:43
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::10

(In reply to comment #9)
> The report following report has been updated:
> SummariesWithProtocolLinks.py
>
> The original report did not expect multiple ProtocolRef/Link elements within
> one section and therefore it overwrote the information for the first REF/LINK
> when populating the second, overwriting the first and second when populating
> the third, etc.
>
> This has been fixed and is ready for review on MAHLER.

We are testing with 62854 on Mahler but the report is not showing any of the comments and not even the Protocol Link/Ref data. Do you think with should test on Franck instead? That is, after you have copied the changes to Franck?

Comment entered 2010-08-31 15:41:43 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-08-31 15:41:43
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::11

I forgot to remove a filter to allow me to test the changes.
The restriction has been removed and you should see all of the comments now.

Please review on MAHLER.

Comment entered 2010-08-31 17:33:16 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-08-31 17:33:16
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::12

(In reply to comment #11)
> I forgot to remove a filter to allow me to test the changes.
> The restriction has been removed and you should see all of the comments now.
>
> Please review on MAHLER.

Verified on Mahler. Please promote to Bach.

Comment entered 2010-08-31 17:46:08 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-08-31 17:46:08
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::13

The following program has been copied to FRANCK and BACH:
SummariesWithProtocolLinks.py - R9860

Please verify on BACH and close this bug.

Comment entered 2010-09-01 13:11:49 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

BZDATETIME::2010-09-01 13:11:49
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::14

(In reply to comment #13)
> The following program has been copied to FRANCK and BACH:
> SummariesWithProtocolLinks.py - R9860
>
> Please verify on BACH and close this bug.

Verified on Bach. Issue closed. Thank you!

Elapsed: 0:00:00.001690