CDR Tickets

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 11:50:47
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::1

I'm adding Bob Kline to the CC list for this issue. I'd add Victoria too but she's not in the Bugzilla system yet so I'll just forward the emails to her for now.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 11:52:40
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::2

Adding Robin H. to CC list too.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 12:11:24
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::3

Bob and I both looked at this.

Here's our understanding of what the system does and how it works
inside with respect to the database tables.

The Admin Tool for the existing Citation Management System allows
the administrator to disable an existing user. Under the covers,
that only does two things:

Mark the user as no longer active (sets delete_flag = 1).

Deletes any row in the table that associates an editorial
board with this user.

It does not appear to do anything at all with the review tasks
or summaries assigned to the user.

Here are the other tables that need to be updated:

MT_REVIEW:

Lists all of the reviews assigned to a cips reviewer. The
ones that have been completed get a row in the
mt_decision_history table.

Currently there are 699 rows in that table for Judy
Bader. All of them are from review cycles for January
and February 2012.

LU_SUMMARIES

Associates reviewers with summary topics. It appears that,
when the imports for a review cycle are "published", all of
the summaries with Judy's topics will appear in her queue (in
the mt_review table) for her to review.

Currently there are 20 rows in that table for Judy Bader.

So, if we update these tables, 699 existing summaries will be
routed to Victoria plus all of the new ones for March, when they
are published.

Does that sound right?

If it is right, we have two immediate ways to proceed:

1. Re-assign the summary associations to other reviewers. We
need to do that no matter what else we do to prevent more
articles from being assigned to Judy. We want to do it
before publishing.

Should all 20 be assigned to Victoria, or should we parcel
them out to multiple users?

I didn't find any way to do that in the web based user
interface Admin Tool. But I can do it by hand if need be.

2. Review the remaining 699 summaries.

I can think of two good ways to do that:

a. Update the database.

b. Have Victoria and/or other users logon as Judy to review
them (this was suggested by Christine Ramirez at a
management meeting when I mentioned that this task is on
our plate. It's a good suggestion I think.)

I'm personally inclined towards method b because it involves
less ham handed modification of the database, but I'll let
others decide about that.

Whatever we decide to do, I'll refresh the test database using
the latest from production, then I'll do the work in test and we
can see if it all came out okay.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 13:55:53
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::4

I emailed the last comment to Victoria and she sent the following
reply, which I'm posting here so that the Bugzilla notes will be complete.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Alan,

I read through this and actually followed it pretty well! Here's what I think you need to know:

All of Judy's topics should be reassigned to me. I may find others to take some of those (or some of the ones I'm currently doing) later, but for now, I will take them all.

Regarding what is already in her queue, while I would prefer that those articles just be dumped in my queue, I think it makes the most sense to go with whatever requires the least amount of work on your part. If it's easier for me to just go in as Judy and review those topics, I don't think that's a problem. It's only two months' worth, so having slightly incorrect data (i.e., it will say Judy reviewed it when I did) does not seem like a big deal to me. (Marianne Noone used to have Pat Davis review her literature some months, so that would have been a similar situation.)

If I missed anything, please let me know.

Thanks!
Victoria.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 14:03:25
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::5

I have restored last night's backup of the production database
to development/test.

I shall now attempt (while holding my breath) to do the following:

Reassign all of Judy's summary topics to Victoria.

Reassign all of the citations in Judy's review queue to Victoria.

When I'm done I'll try out the user interface and if that's okay
I'll ask Victoria to test that it looks right to her.

Stay tuned.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 14:37:43
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::6

I executed the following queries:

• • NOT in production!
    USE nci_cms_dev

• • Assign Judy's Summary topics to Victoria

  • Judy's ID = 15, Victoria's = 6
    UPDATE lu_summaries
    SET cips_reviewer_id = 6
    WHERE cips_reviewer_id = 15

• • Assign Judy's pending citation reviews to Victoria
    UPDATE mt_review
    SET cips_reviewer_id = 6
    WHERE cips_reviewer_id = 15
    AND review_id NOT IN (
    SELECT review_id
    FROM mt_decision_history
    )

The first one seemed to work okay.

The second one may have gone wrong. I notice that some of the summary
topics have one or a few more citations in the review queue for Victoria
than they had for Judy.

I'll track down the extras and post again when I find out what happened.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 14:49:38
BZCOMMENTOR::Cynthia Boggess
BZCOMMENT::7

I am working in the system today. Please let me know if I need to log out when you are moving things over to production.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 14:52:42
BZCOMMENTOR::Cynthia Boggess
BZCOMMENT::8

I am working in the system today. Please let me know if I need to log out when you are moving things over to production.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 16:45:05
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::9

Bob and I have looked at many aspects of what happened and
believe that all differences between what we saw and what we
expected are benign. Most of them were just due to changes
between the backup of last night and the production version today
that incorporates people's work. A few were due to some oddities
in the database that were probably caused by incidents that
occurred with two individual citations 5 or more years ago.

Here is my current plan:

1. Restore tonight's production backup into the DEV database.

Tonight's backup occurs at 10 pm. It will include everything
everyone did today, unless there are some night owls working.

2. Apply the changes I described earlier:

Assign all of Judy's summary topics to Victoria.

Assign all of Judy's pending reviews to Victoria.

I'd like Victoria to test tomorrow to be sure that everything
looks okay. The test will involve:

Ideally, do nothing in production that will affect Victoria's
queues until Victoria finishes her test. We want the
production database to exactly match the test database in
order for Victoria to be able to find differences that should
not be there.

I'm not sure what might affect this. Two things that I
can think of are:

Victoria should not approve or reject any citations
after 10 pm tonight and before her testing is
finished.

Cynthia should not publish any citations until after
Victoria's testing is complete.

I don't know if any other changes can hurt anything.

Then Victoria should:

Look at Judy and Victoria's queues in production.

Look at the same things in the dev/test database.

Try to find anything that shows up in Victoria's queue
that should not be there, or anything that failed to show
up that should have.

Then

Approve and/or reject some citations that would have been
in one of Judy's queues to make sure that everything
works as expected.

If Victoria gives the go ahead then everyone can resume any work
that was suspended for her test.

Assuming everything is okay, I will then do the following:

1. Wait until we're done work on Friday and the regular Friday
night backup is complete.

2. On Saturday morning, apply the changes to move Judy's topics
and queues to Victoria.

3. Post a message in Bugzilla and email it to Victoria in case
anyone is planning to work on Saturday and wants to wait
until I'm done.

If anything went wrong, we'll still have the Friday night backup
to restore from on Monday, or whenever we discover the problem.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 16:51:05
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::10

When I'm done, someone will want to use the Admin Tool to disable
Judy's credentials in the system. I'll leave that to Cynthia or
whoever usually does that in case there's some reason to leave her
login intact for a while.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 16:58:23
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::11

Here's another email from Victoria.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense to me (for the most part). I'll be out well before 10, and I will check tomorrow (might not be until the afternoon) and see if I find any differences between the development site and the live site.

Thanks for all your work on this. I'll be in touch tomorrow.

Victoria.

---Original Message---
From: Alan Meyer vrmeyer@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:47 PM
To: Shields, Victoria (NIH/NCI) [E]
Subject: Fwd: [OCECDR-3490] Re-assignment of adult treatment board summary topics

Here's the latest again.

Please look it over and let me know if I need to change anything.
I'm planning to make changes in DEV tonight for you to test
tomorrow.

Thanks.

Alan

• • • • • • • • Original Message --------
                Subject: [OCECDR-3490] Re-assignment of adult treatment board summary topics
                ...

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 18:39:08
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::12

I have prevailed upon our intrepid Bugzilla administrator (who shall remain nameless but can be recognized by his red hair and German accent) to add Victoria to the Bugzilla projects for the CDR and EBMS.

I'm adding Victoria to the CC list for this issue.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-22 23:04:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::13

(In reply to comment #9)
...
> Here is my current plan:
>
> 1. Restore tonight's production backup into the DEV database.
>
> Tonight's backup occurs at 10 pm. It will include everything
> everyone did today, unless there are some night owls working.
>
> 2. Apply the changes I described earlier:
>
> Assign all of Judy's summary topics to Victoria.
>
> Assign all of Judy's pending reviews to Victoria.
...

This has been done. The development database is now ready for Victoria to test using the latest data as of 10 pm tonight.

I had to put the database into single user mode to do the restore. Someone was using it, I don't know who. I had to blow whoever it was off the database. It was probably just a window left open on Bob's workstation, but if it was someone who was actually trying to do something in the dev/test database, I apologize for messing you up.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-23 17:33:31
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::14

I'm copying this entire email exchange between myself and Victoria into the Bugzilla record so that everyone can see what has been going on.

Victoria did some testing and found some anomalies. The email exchange reads from the bottom up with the latest message at the top. It's my response to Victoria's last message.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, I'm not a CiteMS user and am not always sure what the system is supposed to do.

The CMS ID of the first article in question is 257867.

If I look for that in the database using SQL directly, in both the production and test databases it has:

2 rows in the table that associates citations and summaries.
1 row in the table that stores reviews.
0 rows in the table that stores review decisions.

The one row in the table that stores reviews shows the summary topic as Adult Soft Tissue Sarcoma.

If I search for the article using the CiteMS software, it shows one "review by" for it, for adult treatment. If I look at the full status display for that review, no decision history is recorded. That's the same in both systems.

Do you recall whether you reviewed this article? Would you have expected it to show up in your queue, in Judy's, or in both?

I suspect a bug in the system, but I don't know for sure.

I can think of several possible approaches here.

1. I can go ahead and pull the trigger on this change, updating the summaries reviewer and moving all of Judy's review queue to you.

2. We can just move Judy's summary topics to you and leave the reviews alone. You'd have to go in to the system and review her citations as her.

3. We can wait while I try to diagnose what's actually happening and whether there is a bug in the software. It would be easiest for me to do that on Monday when I could be in the office and consult with you on what is supposed to be happening.

4. I can move Judy's summary topics to you. I think that should enable Cynthia to publish and have all of the new reviews that would have gone to Judy to go to you instead. But I can defer moving the reviews out of her queue until Monday, do a little debugging then, and then make a decision about whether to move Judy's reviews or leave them alone.

I'm inclined towards 4. However to make sure it works, I'm inclined to ask Cynthia to publish in the test system and see that the new reviews are indeed properly assigned and that everything works.

Does that make sense?

Alan

On 03/23/2012 04:34 PM, Shields, Victoria (NIH/NCI) [E] wrote:
> Well, I don't want to beat a dead horse. The instances of these are few, so unless you think this could be an indication of a problem, please don't worry about it. It may not matter.
>
> ---Original Message---
> From: Alan Meyer vrmeyer@comcast.net
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 4:30 PM
> To: Shields, Victoria (NIH/NCI) [E]
> Subject: Re: [OCECDR-3490] Re-assignment of adult treatment board summary topics
>
> I'll sign on as you and see what I can figure out.
>
> What I did was look directly in the database. I looked for any articles
> that had reviews assigned but not yet completed that had Adult Soft
> Tissue Sarcoma as the summary topic. Seven showed up. In the
> production system one had your reviewer ID and six had Judy's. In the
> test system all seven were in your queue.
>
> Maybe there's a bug in the program that's not showing that one in
> production. Or maybe I misunderstood what I was looking at.
>
> I'll look again and get back to you.
>
> Alan
>
> On 03/23/2012 04:25 PM, Shields, Victoria (NIH/NCI) [E] wrote:
>> I am not at all arguing with your findings, but I want to make sure this "irregularity" or whatever is not a true problem. I don't think it is, but just to clarify...when you say, "I suspect you thought you finished everything but missed one" I have to question that because in my current queue, there are only 3 topics showing up: Adult Primary Liver, Esophageal, and Plasma Cell Neoplasms. If I missed it, it's because it isn't there. Colon Cancer and Endometrial Cancer are other examples of the same thing. They are assigned to me and there are no articles for them in my current queue, but they are on the dev site. I'm assuming you have access to my password and can look at my current queue?
>>
>> If you think we're good, then please flip the switch, pull the trigger, do whatever you need to do to move these babies over. I've got a lot going on this weekend and I know I won't be reviewing citations until Monday.
>>
>> Thank you for getting this straightened out!
>> Victoria.
>>
>> ---Original Message---
>> From: Alan Meyer vrmeyer@comcast.net
>> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 4:17 PM
>> To: Shields, Victoria (NIH/NCI) [E]
>> Subject: Re: [OCECDR-3490] Re-assignment of adult treatment board summary topics
>>
>> I looked in the production and test databases. The production database
>> shows one citation on Adult Soft Tissue Sarcoma, CMS ID = 257865, still
>> assigned to you. That one is the one showing up in the test database,
>> plus six more from Judy.
>>
>> I suspect you thought you finished everything but missed one.
>>
>> You can go ahead and review it in the test system to make sure it goes
>> away but, unless you think there are other problems, I'll assume
>> everything is okay.
>>
>> I'll wait until tomorrow morning after tonight's backup, then I'll apply
>> the changes to production.
>>
>> If you need to do work in production today that should be fine. The
>> changes I make will use whatever is there, not what I copied into test
>> last night.
>>
>> Let me know if there are any more problems. Otherwise I'll do the deed
>> late tonight or tomorrow morning.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> On 03/23/2012 04:02 PM, Alan Meyer wrote:
>>> Hi Victoria,
>>>
>>> I'll see if I can figure out why you've got the Adult Soft Tissue
>>> Sarcoma article and get back to you ASAP.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On 03/23/2012 03:49 PM, Shields, Victoria (NIH/NCI) [E] wrote:
>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>
>>>> I took a look on the development site and the data seems to be
>>>> correct. The only thing that was strange and, I guess, could cause a
>>>> problem was that some of my topics that I've already finished
>>>> reviewing are showing up again. For example, I've already reviewed all
>>>> of the Adult Soft Tissue Sarcoma topics, so that topic does not show
>>>> up in my current queue. But when I went to the dev site, it is there
>>>> with one article associated with it. That article is also associated
>>>> with Renal Cell, one of Judy's topics, so I would expect the article
>>>> to still be under Renal Cell, but it shouldn't be under Adult Soft
>>>> Tissue as well because I already dealt with it. I am assuming it will
>>>> disappear from both places once I review it as part of the Renal Cell
>>>> topics, but I guess we won't know that until I try.
>>>>
>>>> So unless you think this is a problem, it seems like all is OK.
>>>>
>>>> Will you be moving all of these topics to my current queue? (You may
>>>> have said that somewhere, but I wasn't sure.)
>>>>
>>>> And if I should be checking something else, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Victoria.
>>>>
>>>> ---Original Message---
>>>> From: Alan Meyer vrmeyer@comcast.net
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:47 PM
>>>> To: Shields, Victoria (NIH/NCI) [E]
>>>> Subject: Fwd: [OCECDR-3490] Re-assignment of adult treatment board
>>>> summary topics
>>>>
>>>> Here's the latest again.
>>>>
>>>> Please look it over and let me know if I need to change anything.
>>>> I'm planning to make changes in DEV tonight for you to test
>>>> tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> -----— Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [OCECDR-3490] Re-assignment of adult treatment board summary topics
>>>> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:45:10 -0400
>>>> From:<bugzilla-daemon@verdi.nci.nih.gov>
>>>> To:<vrmeyer@comcast.net>
>>>>
>>>> http://verdi.nci.nih.gov/tracker/show_bug.cgi?id=5185
>>>>
>>>> — Comment #9 from Alan Meyer<vrmeyer@comcast.net> 2012-03-22 16:45:05
>>>> EDT ---
>>>> Bob and I have looked at many aspects of what happened and
>>>> believe that all differences between what we saw and what we
>>>> expected are benign. Most of them were just due to changes
>>>> between the backup of last night and the production version today
>>>> that incorporates people's work. A few were due to some oddities
>>>> in the database that were probably caused by incidents that
>>>> occurred with two individual citations 5 or more years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Here is my current plan:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Restore tonight's production backup into the DEV database.
>>>>
>>>> Tonight's backup occurs at 10 pm. It will include everything
>>>> everyone did today, unless there are some night owls working.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Apply the changes I described earlier:
>>>>
>>>> Assign all of Judy's summary topics to Victoria.
>>>>
>>>> Assign all of Judy's pending reviews to Victoria.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like Victoria to test tomorrow to be sure that everything
>>>> looks okay. The test will involve:
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, do nothing in production that will affect Victoria's
>>>> queues until Victoria finishes her test. We want the
>>>> production database to exactly match the test database in
>>>> order for Victoria to be able to find differences that should
>>>> not be there.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what might affect this. Two things that I
>>>> can think of are:
>>>>
>>>> Victoria should not approve or reject any citations
>>>> after 10 pm tonight and before her testing is
>>>> finished.
>>>>
>>>> Cynthia should not publish any citations until after
>>>> Victoria's testing is complete.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if any other changes can hurt anything.
>>>>
>>>> Then Victoria should:
>>>>
>>>> Look at Judy and Victoria's queues in production.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the same things in the dev/test database.
>>>>
>>>> Try to find anything that shows up in Victoria's queue
>>>> that should not be there, or anything that failed to show
>>>> up that should have.
>>>>
>>>> Then
>>>>
>>>> Approve and/or reject some citations that would have been
>>>> in one of Judy's queues to make sure that everything
>>>> works as expected.
>>>>
>>>> If Victoria gives the go ahead then everyone can resume any work
>>>> that was suspended for her test.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming everything is okay, I will then do the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Wait until we're done work on Friday and the regular Friday
>>>> night backup is complete.
>>>>
>>>> 2. On Saturday morning, apply the changes to move Judy's topics
>>>> and queues to Victoria.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Post a message in Bugzilla and email it to Victoria in case
>>>> anyone is planning to work on Saturday and wants to wait
>>>> until I'm done.
>>>>
>>>> If anything went wrong, we'll still have the Friday night backup
>>>> to restore from on Monday, or whenever we discover the problem.
>>>>

BZDATETIME::2012-03-23 18:24:58
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::15

Here's another posting from Victoria:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Something just hit me. I think we've found a bug!

I looked up the soft tissue article in question (257867) in the current system and it is assigned to Judy only and has not been reviewed (as I think you mentioned). I have no idea if I reviewed it, but I SHOULD have because it was assigned to the topic Adult Soft Tissue and that is one of my topics.

When we look up the history of an article, if it has been assigned to more than one board, we get to see (or more) different review paths. But if an article is assigned to two different reviewers, we only see one reviewer path. I've never thought about this before or noticed it, so I don't know how the system decides which reviewer to list. I never thought about this before. Since the adult board is the only board to have more than one reviewer, I don't know that it would happen to other boards.

This article should have two different reviewer paths, yet the default (or whatever) seems to be Judy's review. Either I didn't review it, or it's ignoring my review.

If this is a bug, it's been there all along and there's probably no way to go back and figure out what's been going on. So I think this only matters if it affects us moving forward. Again, up to you how to handle it.

Going with option #4 sounds fine to me.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-23 18:30:22
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::16

Based on what has happened, and unless someone has a better idea, I will adopt alternative 4 from comment #14.

Sometime tomorrow I'll move Judy's 20 summary topics to Victoria. I'll post a message when that's done.

On Monday I'll dig into the code and do a few experiments and see if I can learn more. Then I'll recommend that we either move Judy's queue to Victoria, or have Victoria login as Judy to review those articles.

Cynthia: Do you know when you would like to publish the March citations? We might want to do that in the test database first, if it's easy to do. Then we can make sure that citations that should have gone to Judy all go to Victoria before doing it for real in production.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-24 10:39:14
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::17

(In reply to comment #16)

> Sometime tomorrow I'll move Judy's 20 summary topics to Victoria. I'll post a
> message when that's done.

Done at 10:36 this morning.

Judy had 20 topics and Victoria had 58.

Now Judy has 0 and Victoria has 78.

We've got backups from last night of both the production and test databases in case anything goes wrong.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-26 10:44:48
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::18

I'm going to be doing some experiments this morning using the dev/test Citation Management System database. At various times I might be bringing the database down and replacing it with earlier or later versions in order to see what happens when I move Judy's queue to Victoria.

I'd like to ask everyone to stay out of the dev/test database until I give the all clear.

I'm going to devote a maximum of a few hours to this task. If I still haven't figured it out I may recommend that we ignore the problems, since they're not fatal and we're replacing the whole system anyway. It may be that all that happens if we ignore the problem is that some extra items appear in Victoria's queue that would have been there anyway but under a different topic. I'll try to determine if that's the case and, if so, then this would be a low priority fix.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-26 10:52:04
BZCOMMENTOR::Cynthia Boggess
BZCOMMENT::19

I just published all of the adult citations to the test database. Everything seems to have gone smoothly. There should be 25 adult tissue citations assigned to Victoria.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-26 10:58:45
BZCOMMENTOR::Cynthia Boggess
BZCOMMENT::20

Also...the CMS was designed to take only one adult treatment reviewer's review path. As far as I know it was set up as a first come basis. So if Judy reviewed the citation first, once she said yes or no to it the citation was kicked off everyone's list (if the citation had topics assigned to other adult reviewers). I think every reviewer should have their own path but at the time (10 years ago) this is what was done.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-26 11:06:28
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::21

(In reply to comment #19)
> I just published all of the adult citations to the test database. Everything
> seems to have gone smoothly. There should be 25 adult tissue citations assigned
> to Victoria.

That's good news. Thanks.

I just signed on as Victoria in the test system and I see the Adult Soft Tissue citations for the March review cycle. So it looks like that part of the change I made works fine.

(In reply to comment #15 and #20)

To figure out the rest of it my plan is to restore Friday's backup, or even Thursday's, from before my changes, and check the path followed by the unexpected citation that Victoria found in her queue.

I'll be starting that in the next half hour or so.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-26 15:11:25
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::22

I've tried to trace through the code to figure out what's going on here and to confirm Victoria's and Cynthia's understanding that the review of a citation that has more than one summery topic assigned is random. Obviously, it's not random to the software. I think it probably depends on what happens to be encountered first in the database. However the code is very complicated, consisting of mixtures of Visual Basic forms and programs, ASP programs, and stored procedures. There's no documentation. There are often two or three copies of the same program, and the few comments in the code are sometimes accurate and sometimes not.

I've decided that the best thing for me to do is to give up and not waste more time on this given that the behavior appears to be essentially benign.

I propose to move all of Judy's citations queued for review to Victoria tonight, after the nightly backup.

Unless I hear objections, that's what I'll do.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-26 23:15:48
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::23

(In reply to comment #22)
> ...
> I propose to move all of Judy's citations queued for review to Victoria
> tonight, after the nightly backup.

Done.

Let me know if there are any unexpected problems.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-27 09:22:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Cynthia Boggess
BZCOMMENT::24

Does this mean I have a green light to publish citation in production?

BZDATETIME::2012-03-27 09:53:21
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::25

(In reply to comment #24)

> Does this mean I have a green light to publish citation in production?

I think so, but I'd like to get Victoria to log on and make sure everything looks okay from her point of view.

She's not in her office at the moment. If you can hold off just a bit until she sees her Bugzilla email, please do.

BZDATETIME::2012-03-29 15:26:27
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::26

Victoria and Cynthia (and anyone else if desired), please let me know if you've noticed any problems as a result of the changes. If I don't hear anything in the next few days I'll assume we're okay on this and close the issue.

Thanks.

BZDATETIME::2012-04-12 12:43:43
BZCOMMENTOR::Cynthia Boggess
BZCOMMENT::27

(In reply to comment #26)
> Victoria and Cynthia (and anyone else if desired), please let me know if you've
> noticed any problems as a result of the changes. If I don't hear anything in
> the next few days I'll assume we're okay on this and close the issue.
> Thanks.

No one has reported any problems so I think we are ready close this bug.

BZDATETIME::2012-04-12 15:09:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::28

(In reply to comment #27)

> No one has reported any problems so I think we are ready close this bug.

BZDATETIME::2012-04-12 15:10:22
BZCOMMENTOR::Alan Meyer
BZCOMMENT::29

All done