CDR Tickets

Re-assigning to myself.  Bob wants me to have some fun, too.

This issue depends on OCECDR-4639.  I will need the results of that ticket to continue making the additional change request here.

For PROPOSED DELETIONS, the title of the image/video should be green, bold, and struck through.

When you say bold I'm wondering what this exactly means.  For the version with the image replacements, there is a label and a text.  Does bold mean the label needs to be bold, the text, or both?  For instance, this is currently the display for proposed deletions of the BU report:

Image: The Other Tennis

This ticket requires to rewrite the media denormalization filter and create a new denormaliztion filter in order to handle the EmbeddedVideo element.  The following filters have been created and/or modified (so far):

• CDR339576 - Module: InLine Markup Formatter

• CDR380956 - Module: STYLE BU Insertion Deletion

• CDR410709 - Module: Multimedia Denormalization

• CDR799627 - Denormalization Filter: Video (New Filter on DEV)
  CDR800878 (Filter ID on PROD)

• CDR434822 - Module: QC Filter Templates - Summary

The new filter needs to be included in multiple filter sets:

• QC Summary Set

• QC Summary Set (Bold/Underline)

• QC Summary Patient Set

• QC Summary Patient Set (Bold/Underline)

• Vendor Summary Set

• etc.

Due to these modifications the GlossaryTerm and DrugInfoSummary filters may need to be modified as well.

At the moment, the Summary RS reports are working correctly (with and without image placeholders) and I'm finalizing the Summary BU reports without image placeholders.

On the B/U QC Report:

1. PROPOSED DELETIONS do not show. They should. The title of the image/video should be bold and black.

2. For PROPOSED INSERTIONS, the title of the image/video should be black and bold (not underlined).

3. APPROVED DELETIONS do not show. This is correct. 🙂

4. For APPROVED INSERTIONS, the title of the image/video both look good. 🙂

~juther, I am wondering how to deal with the display of the image/video for BU reports.  For the RS you wanted to have the title displayed in bold which is fine but for the BU report the text is already displayed in bold.  I'm guessing that's a reason why we're displaying the title text for proposed insertion underlined since the title is already bold.

I have the changes so far ready on DEV if you want to have a look.  I have only tested HP summaries so far and will still need to look at patient QC reports.

Attached checklist for RS/BU summary QC reports.

I'm reviewing the changes to the RLSO report on DEV (using CDR517309 as my test doc) and found a couple of things. Thanks for the spreadsheet, by the way - that's really helpful and shows just how complicated this all is. 🙂

• Proposed insertions: The title of the image/video is displaying in red. (It should be green.)

• Proposed deletions: The title of the image/video is displaying in black. (It should be green.)

The approved insertions/deletions all look good.

Proposed insertions for titles display in red???

I'm surprised about this finding.  Let me take a look about that.  

We still need to talk about how to display the (bold?) title in the BU reports for proposed insertion.

that's really helpful and shows just how complicated this all is.

Yes, keeping 160 different paths straight can get confusing without a map.  Keep in mind, we're not setting up the images for the "publish" markup at this point, so we're cutting down on some additional options. 🙂

It looks like I'll have to add another column to my spreadsheet for the summary type. 🙁 

The markup for the RS reports are correct for the treatment summaries but not for your genetics summary.  Good thing you're using a different document to test these changes!

Sorry, I thought I added a comment about that but apparently my session had timed out. Don't you love that? Anyway, I think it's fine to leave the image/video titles in bold/underline for proposed insertions. It just seems easier to see and differentiate from the caption.

Oh, how strange!

Quick question for you, ~juther:  Is it correct that we're displaying the image/video caption for HP summaries when image placeholders are displayed but we're not showing captions for patient summaries with placeholders?

I vaguely remember something like this to be the rule and looking at my spreadsheet this is the case for all patient summaries (RS and BU report).

So, this means we will display the titles in the BU report with images for proposed insertion as bold with underline, just like the approved inserted text.

Yes, that sounds right to me.

I was hoping I could finish this first pass but I have 4 more options to look at before looking into the problem with Robin's summary.  Actually, these 4 are new issues I've introduced by fixing some of the other options.

I will hopefully be able to finish the summary filters tomorrow before starting to test all document types.

Good, I found the issue with the genetics summary.  There are some slight differences in the structure of the XML after the two summaries that we were looking at had been denormalized.  With a change to the test for approved and proposed markup I can make the filter more robust and account for those differences.  No additional column to my spreadsheet needed. 👍

I think I've got it.  I have made additional changes to one of the filters to address the issue that Robin brought up with her summary.  All my tests pass.

Please check it out on DEV, ~juther.

So far I've tested just with my genetics HP summary (CDR517309). I found a few minor things.

On the HP B/U QC report:

1. For proposed deleted images, the title should be bold and struck through. (This is correct for proposed deleted videos.)

On the HP RLSO QC report:

1. For proposed deleted images, the title should be green (not black). 

2. For proposed inserted images, the title should be green (not red).

Did you have these elements in your test document earlier or did you add these images for this round of testing?  I'm positive all marked-up elements that existed in your test document were displaying correctly when I checked them.

Just trying to find out in which direction I need to look for trouble-shooting.

I like to think that I'm done with my changes but ~juther has ways to find more for me to do (which is good!  It makes the code better)

I found that under certain conditions empty Insertion/Deletion tags were created that parts of the filter depended on, which is wrong.  I have updated the filter to not rely on those empty tags anymore.

The following filters have been modified:

• CDR339576 - Module: InLine Markup Formatter

• CDR410709 - Module: Multimedia Denormalization

This is ready for review on DEV.

The genetics summary (CDR517309) looks good and the videos in CDR62902 look good.

When I went to test images in a treatment summary (I used CDR62908), I ran into some inconsistencies with the display of the captions.

On the HP Bold/Underline Report

• Proposed deleted images - please strike through the caption.

• Proposed inserted images - please display the caption in bold text.

• Approved deleted images - all good. These don't display. 🙂

• Approved inserted images - please display the caption in bold and underlined text.

On the HP RLSO Report

• Proposed deleted images - please strike through the caption and display the text in green.

• Proposed inserted images - please display the caption in green.

• Approved deleted images - please strike through the caption.

• Approved inserted images - please display the caption in red text.

It appears that we do need another column in our spreadsheet.  The difference between the summaries we looked at first and the last one you were testing is that the last one is specifying the "UseCaption = Yes" attribute for the MediaLink.  This is changing how to retrieve and display the content.

I've made those changes and maybe, just maybe, we now have all of the quirks ironed out?

Please give it another look on DEV, ~juther.

I found one small thing:

On the patient summary bold/underline QC report, the caption is still displaying for approved deleted images (the image and image title do not display). It should not display.

I also noticed that if a specific media caption is used for an embedded video, then the video displays twice on the HP bold/underline and RLSO QC reports - once with no caption, and once with both the caption from the media doc AND the caption in the summary document. I think we should open a separate issue for this since it isn't really related to the markup problems we're addressing here. And I don't know that we have any real use cases for this yet so it shouldn't hold up the rest of this ticket. I didn't test this in the patient summaries since we don't typically override captions in the patient summaries.

~juther, which document are you looking at?  My two HP and Patient documents (Small Intestine Cancer Treatment) are deleting everything correctly.

Are you seeing this for images or video, patient or HP, using the summary caption or media caption?

I think it would make sense to add a separate ticket for this issue, especially since it's rarely used.

I've seen this with the Bladder Ca Treatment patient summary - CDR62705. This is for the image only (the video is fine) using the media caption.

We will need to add another row on the spreadsheet.  The difference between the document you were using for your tests and the one I was using is that one of the documents is displaying captions specified as part of the MediaLink element while the other is displaying captions coming from the Media document and the @UseCaption = "Yes" attribute of the MediaLink element.

The filter has been updated to apply approved deletions of the caption for the BU report:

• CDR339576 - Module: InLine Markup Formatter

Verified on DEV. 🙂 Thank you!!

Filter sets tested on QA:

• QC Citation Set ✔

• QC DrugInfoSummary Set ✔

• QC Media Set ✔

• QC Summary Patient Set ✔
  only expected differences

• QC Summary Patient Set (Bold/Underline) ✔
  only expected differences

• QC Summary Set ✔
  only expected differences

• QC Summary Set (Bold/Underline) ✔
  only expected differences

• QC Term Set ✔

• Vendor QC DrugInfoSummary Set ✔

• Vendor QC GlossaryTerm Set ✔

• Vendor QC Media Set ✔

• Vendor QC Summary Set ✔

• Vendor QC Term Set ✔

The following filter sets have been modified to add the new video denormalization filter:

• Denormalization GlossaryTerm Set

• QC DrugInfoSummary Set

• QC QD Summary Patient Set

• QC QD Summary Patient Set (Bold/Underline)

• QC QD Summary Set

• QC QD Summary Set (Bold/Underline)

• QC Summary Patient Set

• QC Summary Patient Set (Bold/Underline)

• QC Summary Set

• QC Summary Set (Bold/Underline)

• Vendor DrugInfoSummary Set

• Vendor GlossaryTerm Set

• Vendor QC DrugInfoSummary Set

• Vendor QC Summary Set

• Vendor Summary Set

I have updated all modified (and new) filters on QA, updated all necessary filter sets and ran all available QC publishing jobs.  I reviewed several documents of each document type with and without images and compared those to the current output on PROD. 

From what I can see everything looks good to me.

If you want to take another look on QA, ~juther, please go ahead and I'll move the filter changes to STAGE and then PROD sometime next week since I'm out Thursday and Friday.

Should I mention that the original story point estimate for this ticket was probably a little at the low end? 🙂

The modified filters have been copied to PROD and the filter sets have been updated.

Please verify on PROD and then close this ticket.

Looks good on PROD. I wasn't able to test every possible situation but so far so good. We'll reopen if necessary. Thank you!!!