| Issue Number | 439 |
|---|---|
| Summary | [Reports] New Recent Activity Report |
| Created | 2017-05-31 17:55:54 |
| Issue Type | Improvement |
| Submitted By | Juthe, Robin (NIH/NCI) [E] |
| Assigned To | Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Status | Closed |
| Resolved | 2017-06-29 09:38:00 |
| Resolution | Fixed |
| Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/oceebms/issue.209337 |
Some Board members have expressed an interest in getting an e-mail with information about recent EBMS activity that they should see, possibly on either a weekly or monthly basis. We think that implementing e-mail notifications in the system (with the necessary manual involvement and preferences) would be fairly labor intensive and we aren't sure how beneficial they would be across all of the Boards. Therefore, we thought that a report summarizing recent activity by Board may be a more suitable alternative since we could copy/paste and revise if necessary and send it to our Board members when desired.
The report would ideally include the following information by Board:
-Packet assigned (name of packet)
-Board member review submitted (article information, review,
comments)
-Document posted (file name, poster, notes [if applicable], link to
file)
-Meeting added to calendar
-Meeting changed date/time
-Meeting changed from in person to WebEx/vice versa
-Agenda published
Filtering parameters should include:
-Board (one or more can be selected, logged-in user's default Board
should be pre-selected)
-Activity Type (drop-down with the following options: All, Literature,
Document, Meeting) (one or more can be selected, All is the
default)
-Date range
Looking more closely at the individual items which are to appear on the report, I realized that the system doesn't currently know them, because they're not captured by the Drupal engine which saves the native Drupal objects (like the Drupal event nodes). LOE story points adjusted.
For the "Packet assigned" event, do you really mean "Packet created"? Or did you want separate events for each reviewer assigned to the packet (including separate events when the composition of the reviewer list changes for a packet)? It would simplify things enormously if we have the report reflect "Packet created" events.
For "Document posted" do you mean "Summary posted" or are you referring to any document uploaded to the EBMS?
If we can interpret "Packet assigned" as "Packet created" and "Document posted" as "Summary posted" I think it's possible we might already be capturing the information we'd need for this report (though we'll have to assemble it from multiple places), and the story points could drop back down to where I originally had them (13). What do you say? We can use whatever wording you want on the report itself, as long as the logic reflects the interpretation I'm proposing here.
Yes, it's fine to use both "packet created" and "summary posted" for those items. Let's use "packet created" and "summary posted" for the labels so it's more clear where that information is coming from. Thanks!
OK, thanks. Story points dropped back down.
If you have any preferences about layout (e.g., order everything by date in one sequence vs. separate blocks or tables for different event types), now's the time to speak up.
Hi Bob, I plan to discuss this with the other Board managers when we meet tomorrow. I'll let you know if we have any particular layout suggestions. Thanks.
Installed on DEV.
Hi Bob,
We discussed this in the meeting today. Thanks again for preparing the sample for us to look at/respond to. That was very helpful.
Here are our requests:
1. Please uncheck "Meeting" by default. We are thinking that we won't
use that option as frequently as we'll use the other two.
2. Please add an option to sort the results by activity type, with the
following subheadings: Literature Activity, Document Activity, Meeting
Activity.
3. Would it be possible to add another option to sort the results by
summary topic? If this is complicated, perhaps we could add the topic to
the "review posted" block beneath the Board member comment. It would be
helpful to be able to quickly see which topic the article/document is
related to in case we want to customize the e-mails to send only items
pertaining to our Board members' assigned topics.
4. I don't think published agendas are displaying on the report (they
should be).
Thank you!
One more thing. When I run the report and then click the "Back" button to return to the report interface, I get a big block of error messages in red. JIRA no longer lets us add screenshots, so here's the text of the error message:
Notice: Undefined variable: date in
pdq_ebms_recent_activity_form_submit() (line 7180 of
/local/drupal/sites/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/reports.inc).
Notice: Undefined variable: date in
pdq_ebms_recent_activity_form_submit() (line 7180 of
/local/drupal/sites/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/reports.inc).
Notice: Undefined variable: date in
pdq_ebms_recent_activity_form_submit() (line 7188 of
/local/drupal/sites/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/reports.inc).
Notice: Undefined variable: date in
pdq_ebms_recent_activity_form_submit() (line 7188 of
/local/drupal/sites/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/reports.inc).
Notice: Undefined variable: date in
pdq_ebms_recent_activity_form_submit() (line 7180 of
/local/drupal/sites/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/reports.inc).
Notice: Undefined variable: date in
pdq_ebms_recent_activity_form_submit() (line 7180 of
/local/drupal/sites/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/reports.inc).
Notice: Undefined variable: date in
pdq_ebms_recent_activity_form_submit() (line 7188 of
/local/drupal/sites/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/reports.inc).
Notice: Undefined variable: date in
pdq_ebms_recent_activity_form_submit() (line 7180 of
/local/drupal/sites/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/reports.inc).
I think that's fixed. Please try again.
Would it be possible to add another option to sort the results by summary topic?
What would it mean to sort meeting activity by summary topic? I didn't think meetings had topics.
You're right. That would only apply to posted reviews and documents. Meetings would have to remain their own category.
Yes, but what would the software do if the user asked to sort the results by summary topic, and also included meeting activity in the report? Should we reject the report request as invalid?
Yes, that seems reasonable. Perhaps the "sort by" option could read "Summary Topic (Literature and Document Activity Only)".
If meeting is selected along with the summary topic option, let's display an error message that says something like. "Invalid request. Meeting information cannot be sorted by summary topic."
We've got a similar problem with sorting summary activity by topic, because the summary pages can have an unlimited number of topics. Should we restrict sorting by topic to just the Literature activity (packets and reviews, which have a clear one-to-one connection with a topic)? Or perhaps just fall back on your original alternate solution:
If this is complicated, perhaps we could add the topic to the "review posted" block beneath the Board member comment.
The wording of your suggestion leads me to believe that you had this "topic sorting" in mind just for the reviews anyway. That would avoid the need for a messy explanation of when they can and can't use this third sorting method, and having error messages stop them when they're not paying attention to the explanation. It would also mean we could reduced the three sorting "radio buttons" to a single checkbox to group events by activity under each board.
... perhaps we could add the topic to the "review posted" block beneath the Board member comment.
Maybe even better, just add the name of the packet, which generally includes the topic, and provides even more precise information about what review goes with which packet.
I've implemented it this way. Let me know what you think.
I don't think published agendas are displaying on the report (they should be).
Fixed.
I believe I have addressed all of the things you mentioned.
Can you please change "Recent Events" in the title of the report output to "Recent Activity"? Please also change the subheadings "Literature Events" to "Literature Activity", "Summary Events" to "Document Activity", and "Meeting Events" to "Meeting Activity". Please also make the subheadings a little larger and/or add some space around them so they stand out a bit more.
Please also change "Summary posted..." in the report output to "Document posted...". Although we're only looking at items posted to the summaries page, there could be documents posted there that aren't summaries. (especially since this is the only place a Board member can post a document)
Could you please display the results in reverse chronological order? I think it's ideal for them to see the most recent changes first if they don't review everything.
All requested changes implemented.
Please change "Summary Activity..." to "Document Activity..." in the 2nd category heading.
I'm unable to get any meeting activity to display for any dates prior to June 2017.
The category heading has been changed.
The older events are not showing up in the report because as part of the development effort on the DEV tier some of the message field types were dropped and recreated manually, which caused the instance data to be marked as deleted. I don't thing that will happen as the message type changes are propagated up the tiers with the deployment script, but I'm going to test this assumption by running that script on DEV in a few minutes. There are currently 1482 board field instances on dev, and 1307 of them are flagged as deleted. If these numbers don't change when I run the deployment script on DEV, I'll take that to confirm my theory, and I'll turn off those delete flags. None of the board field instances on PROD are marked as deleted.
Good news and bad news. The board message fields were unaffected by the deployment script (that's the good news). Of course, we'll want to watch very carefully what happens when we deploy to QA.
The bad news is that the same development effort on DEV to modify the message field definitions completely wiped out the event_id fields (not just setting their deleted flags to true). This was true even before I ran the deployment script a few minutes ago. This means that the older events are displaying with definitions which say "EVENT NOT FOUND." The additional bit of good news is that the deployment script left intact the event_id fields which were there before the script was run. Again, I expect everything will be fine on QA (where there are 333 event ID fields, in contrast with the 12 which are on DEV).
This looks good for now then. We'll take a close look on QA to make sure the events are displaying as expected. Thanks!
Under the posted reviews, could you please display the italicized text as italicized? We are seeing the <i> tags (example below).
Comments: <i>Recorded by Bonnie Ferguson on behalf of Eric Seifter.</i>
Unfortunately, that's not the fault of the report code. The comment column has that markup stored in it. Looks like a bug in the monster citations.inc file. You can file a ticket to get that bug fixed, but it won't help the way the report looks for comments which were entered before the fix. As far as I can tell, it only happens when you enter the review directly on the "full citation" page instead of going through the Record Responses interface.
We've decided we don't need to show the Packets that have been assigned in this report. It gets kind of messy with those updates mixed in with the posted reviews, and we always send an email to our Board members when we post new packets anyway. Could you please remove these from the activity updates in this report? Thanks.
Try it on DEV; if it looks OK, I'll promote to QA.
That looks good on DEV. Thanks!
This is now on QA. Verified on QA.
Verified on PROD.
Elapsed: 0:00:00.000766