| Issue Number | 5262 |
|---|---|
| Summary | Exclude Refreshed Terms from Drug Review Report |
| Created | 2023-07-12 10:44:54 |
| Issue Type | Improvement |
| Submitted By | Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Assigned To | Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Status | Closed |
| Resolved | 2023-07-14 13:50:16 |
| Resolution | Fixed |
| Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/ocecdr/issue.350752 |
It looks like the newly refreshed terms from EVS are being added under the New Drugs from the CDR tab of the Drug Review Report. Could you please exclude these terms from the report since they are not new terms? I have attached a copy of the report I just ran. with July 01 to July 12 date range.
Repro Steps on PROD
Navigate to the Reports menu
Go to the Terminology submenu
Select Drug Review Report
Enter a date range
Click submit
Open the Excel report generated
You will notice that the report includes terms like Albumin which is not a new term
This is not a bug. This is the way the report is required to work
(and the way it has worked for the past 16 years). When Alan first
implemented this report in June 2007 (for OCECDR-2166) he used the date
of creation for selecting the terms matching the user's date range. A
few months later (September 2007) Sheri asked him to change the report
(OCECDR-2352) so that it instead used the
DateLastModified element from
the Term document instead of the creation date (which he
did). One clue to this change is that the documentation on the landing
page for the report says it will show terms which were "created or
imported" during the date range. Please review the ticket history for a
report before filing a bug report against it.
Can the report to be modified to exclude the refreshed terms? For example, the New Document Count with Publication Status captures new terminology created within a date range. Can the Drug Review Report show this information under the New Drugs from the CDR tab?
CIAT told Alan to change the logic of the report in order to ensure that any drug terms with changed information would be included for review. If you believe that that decision was wrong, or that it was right at the time but no longer a good idea, please lay out your justifications here. As always, having clearly articulated business objectives is a much more reliable way to avoid arbitrarily bouncing between decisions to change the software (because no one can remember why the last change was made) than dictating specific changes for the software's behavior without a business justification.
I am not sure why the changes were requested and but this is the information from Mary, who uses the report:
"This tab of the report is what I send to the EVS NCI Thesaurus team. It should only include terms they haven't seen yet so they can create a document on their side and write a definition."
Report rewritten to use the date of creation instead of the date last modified. On DEV.
Verified on DEV. Thanks!
Verified on QA! Thanks!
Verified on PROD. Thanks!
| File Name | Posted | User |
|---|---|---|
| DrugReviewReport-20230712103208-94_docs-0.313165_secs.xlsx | 2023-07-12 10:43:57 | Osei-Poku, William (NIH/NCI) [C] |
Elapsed: 0:00:00.000417