CDR Tickets

I am unable to replicate the situation presented here.  I will try to take a look at what's going on by creating test documents on QA.

It appears that the SummaryKeyword values are displayed for the regular QC report and as seen in your screenshot but you're not mentioning this as an issue, ~oseipokuw.  The QC report should show without any content from the module, right?

Hi Volker,

I do not understand your question about the SummaryKeyword. Could you please explain further? With regards to the Modules, yes, nothing from the Module documents should be displaying when running the regular QC report.

You probably don't understand my question because I took care of the problem and you can't see it anymore. 

If you look at the image you provided, you can see that the output for the section "Midline Tract Carcinoma Involving the NUT Gene" displays the text "childhood midline tract carcinoma".  Same for all of the other summaries. This text is coming from the module's element SummaryKeyWord.  All of the module's keywords are listed here.  However, we should be listing the module's Title, which I'm doing now.

OK. Thanks for explaining this, Volker!  Is this ready for testing?

Yes, you can go ahead and test this.

This seems to be working but the QC report displays the title of the Module when it shouldn't

You can take a look at this summary  - 574548. The title shows whether 

you select for QC-Only or not. 

The following filters have been modified to fix the module display issue:

• CDR0000335166.xml - Filter title: Module: Checkbox Formatter

• CDR0000339576.xml - Filter title: Module: InLine Markup Formatter

• CDR0000434822.xml - Filter title: Module: QC Filter Templates - Summary

• CDR0000712005.xml - Filter title: Denormalization Filter: Summary Module

• CDR0000335169.xml - Filter title: Module: STYLE Default  (trailing white space changes)

• CDR0000380958.xml - Filter title: Module: STYLE QC Summary  (trailing white space changes)

I had to copy the modified filters to DEV and QA since I needed to test with a document version that wasn't available on DEV.

Please take another look, ~oseipokuw .

We tested on DEV and everything appears to work correctly. I assume in this case, there is no need to repeat the testing on QA, right?

I will run some diff reports on QA to confirm the publishing output hasn't changed and I haven't introduced some other issues.  It is up to you if you want to do some additional checking on QA once the filters have been copied.

The diff reports on QA came out clean except for some of the summaries with modules. 

~oseipokuw, these are the summaries that show differences if you want to double check that these come out as expected now:

• CDR62792.xml

• CDR62836.xml

• CDR62932.xml

• CDR62945.xml

• CDR774921.xml

Could you point me to what to look for? We looked at some of the summaries and couldn't find anything odd. One of the summaries is an invalid document so that might be the reason for it to be included in the list you provided but the rest appear to be OK so I am not sure why they are showing up in your list.

~oseipokuw, these documents are showing up with differences because we fixed the filters to correctly handle modules.  Naturally, summaries with modules will show differences in a diff report.  The purpose of the diff reports in general is to confirm that we did not break anything.  I ran the QC reports for every document type that is sharing one of the modified filters.  For some minor filter changes, i.e. adding an element, it's also possible to use the output of the diff report and confirm that everything is behaving as expected.  For these summaries that do use modules, however, we can now see major text differences and it's not easy to inspect these automatically.  For these I just wanted you to have a look at the output and confirm that the filter output provides what you expected.

We have reviewed before and after QC reports after the filter change and did not find anything different. Also, the reports appear to be displaying the modules correctly as reported earlier.

~oseipokuw, would you like me to copy the filter changes to PROD today or should we wait until after Friday's publishing job?

Please copy the changes to PROD. We did a last minute review and found what appears to be a bug but it is also on PROD so I will create a separate ticket to take care of it. Essentially when a list item text is in proposed deletion text, it doesn't show in the the B/U report but it does show in the RL/SO report. I will create a separate ticket with an example for further investigation.

Verified on QA. Thanks!

The updated filters have been pushed to STAGE and PROD.

Please verify on PROD and close this ticket if things look good.

Verified on PROD. Thanks!