CDR Tickets

Issue Number 4985
Summary Modify summaries QC Reports
Created 2021-06-09 11:22:06
Issue Type Improvement
Submitted By Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]
Assigned To Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]
Status Closed
Resolved 2021-08-04 14:39:09
Resolution Fixed
Path /home/bkline/backups/jira/ocecdr/issue.291905
Description

In OCECDR-4968 we  implemented a feature (UsedFor = qc-only) that allows us to generate one QC report containing all linked module content (within a summary) in one report for board members instead of using a shell doc which required duplicate maintenance. For the affected summaries, the default behavior is, all module content in the QC report is included in the report without giving the user the option to specify whether all module content should be included or not. However, in many cases, we run the QC reports for individual summaries and modules and do not need to see all the content in one report.

This request is to provide an option for the user so that when we are generating the QC report, we can specify that not all linked module content should be included in the report, essentially overriding the default behavior of the QC report.

Preferably, this should be an option in the QC report interface. For example, we could include an option under Misc. Print Option (Run as Board Member QC Report). The default is to have it unchecked so that when we want to generate a QC report for board members, we will check the box (Run as Board Member QC Report). This will then run the report to include all linked module content that have been marked as (UsedFor = qc-only), when the option is checked.

Comment entered 2021-08-02 19:54:04 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

The following filters and scripts have been modified:

This is ready on DEV.

Comment entered 2021-08-04 20:40:47 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

Additional filter changes were necessary for the vendor output.  The majority of the changes were white space formatting as well as using the XSL element tag instead of HTML tags:

Comment entered 2021-10-28 12:17:15 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

I have moved this ticket to the Oersted as we have talked about including it in the next release. Development is done and it only needed thorough testing.

Comment entered 2021-11-02 12:32:31 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

Same comment as in OCECDR-4988:

Based on our discussion on Thursday it sounds you all would like this ticket to go to production sooner rather than later.  The difficulty about moving tickets around is handling this change in Github.  Therefore, rather than extracting the change out of Ohm and incorporating it back into Oersted I'd prefer to move the change to PROD individually as a hot-fix.  We'll only need help from CBIIT for a single Python script.  All other changes are filter related and we can do these ourselves.

Therefore, is everyone OK to move these changes to production as a hot-fix and, , have you already tested these changes on DEV?

Comment entered 2021-11-03 11:39:13 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

Hi Volker  It is OK to hot-fix these tickets instead of including them in Oersted. So, I am moving them back into the Ohm for now, while we test and report any additional issues we find.

Comment entered 2021-11-04 12:01:06 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

Please modify the label for running the report for board members by appending "(board members QC report)".

Also, please remove the default selection in the checkbox so that the user can select the check box when running the report for board members.

Additionally, it looks like the report adds the content of the linked module documents to the report when the checkbox is selected or not. The module content should only be included when running the report for board members.

Comment entered 2021-11-04 12:52:36 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

Also, please remove the default selection in the checkbox

In the description for this ticket you said the default was to display the modules which would mean the checkbox is checked.  You are saying now that the default is changing and the modules should be suppressed.
Do I understand that correctly?

Comment entered 2021-11-04 13:31:48 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

I was probably not clear enough in the description but the default is not to display the content from the module documents. The content of the module should only be displayed when the box is checked for board members qc report. 


The default is to have it unchecked so that when we want to generate a QC report for board members, we will check the box (Run as Board Member QC Report). This will then run the report to include all linked module content that have been marked as (UsedFor = qc-only), when the option is checked. 

Comment entered 2021-11-18 20:31:46 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

The changes to the checkbox label and to the default for displaying the QC-only modules have been adjusted. The following script has been updated on QA:

  • QcReport.py

Comment entered 2021-11-19 13:54:54 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

Note:
I modified CDR62902 (Small Intestine Cancer Treatment) to include one "regular" module and one "QC only" module for testing on QA.

Comment entered 2021-11-29 10:14:47 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

Thanks,  This looks good on QA.

Comment entered 2021-12-03 22:17:41 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

The filters have been copied to STAGE and PROD.  

The web interface to select the new options will be copied on Monday.

Comment entered 2021-12-08 13:57:45 by Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI) [C]

As mentioned earlier, when I was trying to merge the modified filters for the Oppenheimer and the new genetics Spanish summary changes, I ran into merge conflicts which required additional filter changes to these filters:

  • CDR000157.xml - Vendor Filter: Summary

  • CDR335424.xml - Denormalization Filter: Summary

https://github.com/NCIOCPL/cdr-server/commit/289cad1

I've copied these filter changes to the QA server and would like you, , to run through a couple QC report tests to double-check everything is still OK.  I did run a set of diff reports for the summary QC and vendor output filter sets and everything looks good without any reported differences.

Comment entered 2021-12-15 15:39:22 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

I have reviewed a few QC reports on QA and they all looked good. Thanks!

Comment entered 2021-12-17 09:26:54 by Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C]

Looks good on PROD. Thanks!

Elapsed: 0:00:00.001954