| Issue Number | 127 |
|---|---|
| Summary | [Reports] New Report - Responses By Reviewer |
| Created | 2013-12-06 16:54:21 |
| Issue Type | Improvement |
| Submitted By | Juthe, Robin (NIH/NCI) [E] |
| Assigned To | Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Status | Closed |
| Resolved | 2014-01-10 15:51:57 |
| Resolution | Fixed |
| Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/oceebms/issue.115799 |
We'd like to create a new report that will help us see who is and is not completing literature surveillance reviews. Here are the specs.
Responses by Reviewer Report
Select 1 Board.* (required)
Select 1 or more topics. (optional)
Select 1 or more reviewers. (optional)
Select 1 or more review cycles. (optional)
Enter date range. (optional) – this refers to the date packets were
created.
The columns of the report should be (left to right):
Packet Name
Reviewer
Assigned
Completed
Not Completed
Assigned, Completed, and Not Completed refer to the number of reviews they were assigned in that packet, the number of reviews they completed, and the number of reviews they did not complete. We understand that the number of completed and uncompleted reviews may not always add up to the number assigned if articles have been removed from packets after they were originally posted.
Please sort the report by packet name by default. Ideally, both the Packet Name and Reviewer columns would be sortable.
So if I assign three articles to Joe in a packet, then mark one of the articles as dropped, and Joe reviews the other two, that packet should show up on this report?
Never mind - I'm getting my reports mixed up. :-)
Are you aware that packets aren't tied to a cycle in the EBMS? We could do some calculations to match up packets created within a certain date range with the date range implied by the start date tied to a cycle and the start date of the following cycle, but that seems like a convoluted way to do what the date range fields we've already got on the form are doing in a much more straightforward way. Do we really need a filter by cycle for this report?
Yes, that's a good point. It doesn't make sense to have cycles on this report since the cycles are tied to individual articles rather than the packet. Let's remove the cycles and keep the date range fields (referring to the date the packet was created). Thanks.
I'm going to resurrect a version of my first question: should I ignore dropped articles when calculating the "Not Completed" column (but include dropped articles for the "Completed" column)?
Or another possible approach to this report would be to completely ignore dropped articles (and packets which consist entirely of dropped articles). Would that be reasonable?
I went ahead and implemented the report on DEV, counting as "COMPLETED" all the articles in the packet that the board member reviewed, including those which had been subsequently dropped, and ignoring dropped articles when computing the "NOT COMPLETED" column. Ready for user testing.
That logic makes sense to me. Thanks.
Promoted to QA.
Please add a RESET button to the left of the SUBMIT button. The primary action (triggered by hitting enter) should be to submit the report.
I can either put the RESET button on the left, or I can have the SUBMIT button be the default action, but not both.
OK. Please add the RESET button on the left. This will be consistent with other reports. Thanks.
Would it be possible to sort the report output by the date the packet was created (most recent date on top) by default rather than the packet name? Thanks.
Please change the mouseover for the date fields to "Assigned date (defaults to no start date)" and "Assigned date (defaults to no end date)".
Would it be possible to sort the report output by the date the packet was created (most recent date on top) by default rather than the packet name?
I can do that only if you
want clicking on the Packet Name column to order the rows by assigned date instead of packet name; or
want a new column created for packet creation; or
want to remove the ability of the user to control the sort order by clicking on column headers.
What's your pleasure?
Could you please call me when you get a minute to discuss this one? 240-276-6592. Thanks.
I have made all the other new enhancements, ready for checking on DEV.
If you choose the first option from those given in the previous comment, I would recommend changing the column header from "PACKET NAME" to "PACKET."
I've given some more thought to this and I think we should keep the ability to sort by packet name as well as by date. So, please add a column for the date (called ASSIGNED) and make this the default sort when the report is generated (most recent date on top). Although I know the assigned date won't always be a true reflection of when a Board member was assigned the literature if he/she were added to a packet later on, it will be accurate almost all of the time and it will make the most sense to our EICs when we share this report with them.
Please also add totals for the number of articles assigned, completed, and not completed at the bottom of the report. Thank you!
I'd be inclined to call the new column "CREATED" instead of "ASSIGNED"; not just because of the misleading nature of "ASSIGNED" in this context, but also because otherwise you'll have two columns with the same heading, but meaning two different things.
It's fine to go with CREATED.
Good (I don't think Drupal would let us have two columns with the same name with click-on-column-header sorting enabled anyway).
I think all of the new functionality has been implemented on DEV. Please check thoroughly.
Verified on DEV.
Promoted to QA.
Verified on QA.
Verified on prod.
Elapsed: 0:00:00.000274