CDR Tickets

Something like this for the form?

(Just in case you were thinking about requesting that we condense the form by custom alignment of the check boxes in a table-like grid: I'd prefer to avoid hand-crafted HTML if possible, because by using the classes we've built for generating forms and reports we lower our chances of introducing security vulnerabilities into the web pages.)

Any preferences on which check boxes are checked by default?

Enhancement implemented on DEV.

Hi Bob, there are two Boards listed for most of the summaries - the Advisory Board and the Editorial Board. (The Ed. Board is listed again in the Ed. Board element because this is provided to NLM as the author of the summary.) However, this report is only displaying one of the Boards (seems to be the Advisory Board, maybe because it comes first alphabetically?). Could you please display all associated Boards and change the option from "Board" to "Board(s)"?

As for the defaults, I think what you have chosen is fine once we make this change to display all Boards. Thanks!

I put together the options page using your list of displayable fields as specified in the original request. Two of those fields were "Board" and "Editorial Board." The only logical interpretation of "Board" I could come up with, given that "Editorial Board" was the other of these two, was the advisory board. If you check both, you'll get both boards. Did you have something else in mind for these two options? Might it be less confusing to make both options explicit ("Editorial Board" and "Advisory Board")?

We decided in the status meeting to include both "Board(s)" and "Editorial Board (for NLM)" in the list of available options for this report.

I did some digging back into OCECDR-3885, and unless I'm misunderstanding something, the SummaryEditorialBoard element is injected by the publishing filters programmatically; in other words, this value is not maintained separately by hand from the multiply-occurring PDQBoard elements which are children of the SummaryMetaData block, as we thought in yesterday's status meeting. If my current understanding is correct, it would seem superfluous to have a separate field in the report for this new element, and my question would be: do you want the report to keep the separate check boxes for the two boards (possibly renaming "Board" to "Advisory Board"), or do you still want to collapse that into a single check box, and drop the ability to control which boards get displayed? If I've missed something in my picture of how we've implemented OCECDR-3885, please help me find where we're storing the separately-maintained board name.

Thanks for digging this up, Bob. Sorry for misremembering that. I think our original plan was to add a new element (as I wrote in the description of that issue) but wiser minds prevailed (no surprise there!). 🙂

I think we should keep the separate check boxes and rename "Board(s)" to "Advisory Board" as you suggest.

Column name changed as requested (on DEV).

This looks good, but could you please select "Editorial Board" as a default option as well, now that we've decided to separate the two Boards? Thanks.

Done.

Thanks. That looks good, although I just noticed that the Advisory Board column heading on the report output says Editorial Board.

Fixed.

Thanks, verified on DEV.

Verified on QA.

Verified on PROD.