| Issue Number | 470 |
|---|---|
| Summary | [Literature] View/Edit Packets - Add Unreviewed Packets Option |
| Created | 2018-02-21 17:42:40 |
| Issue Type | Improvement |
| Submitted By | Juthe, Robin (NIH/NCI) [E] |
| Assigned To | Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Status | Closed |
| Resolved | 2019-10-01 16:34:38 |
| Resolution | Fixed |
| Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/oceebms/issue.221527 |
Please add a checkbox underneath the "Included Packets" heading for "Unreviewed" packets. This should be checked by default. "Unreviewed" packets refer to packets for which none of the articles have received a review from a Board member. (It's essentially the opposite of what goes to our "Reviewed packets" page.) We plan to use this to archive old, unreviewed packets that likely won't ever get reviewed.
Implemented on DEV.
I don't think this is doing quite what we want it to. It doesn't seem to make a difference if Unreviewed is checked unless it is the only thing that is checked (active vs. archived really drive the results). I'm expecting those search filters to be AND'ed together rather than OR'd. We'd like to be able to see packets that are both active AND unreviewed in order to determine what needs archiving.
In a future release, we should consider moving the "Reviewed" option to this filtering menu too. It's kind of out of place now that we've added all of the filtering options above the list of packets.
Hmm. Looking at the code, it would appear that the original requirements for these boxes were more complicated than "AND all the checked conditions together" (what would it mean to check both "Archived" and "Active"?).
I can try to AND everything together if it turns out to be simple enough, but can you first give me specific cases (with enough details that I can reproduce the behavior myself, and find your examples in the database) where what you expect to happen isn't happening, telling me exactly what you expect to see in each case?
I've reviewed this more today (with ~vshields's help too!), and I think it's actually working OK. Sorry. It's confusing though because "Unreviewed" isn't like the other options. It seems "Unreviewed" IS being AND'ed with the other options, while Active/Archived/Legacy are being OR'd.
I think we'll need to take another look at this page in the next release and consider a better way to organize the filter information. At the very least, Unreviewed/Reviewed should be on a different line, but we discussed a few other ideas that I'll document here for the future, too:
-consider removing "legacy" - we can't think of when we'd need to review these and it's becoming less and less relevant as time goes on (and potentially confusing to newer staff)
-consider having OR'd filtering options such as: 1) all active packets; 2) unreviewed active packets; 3) reviewed active packets; 4) archived packets.
-consider having a separate page for "unreviewed packets" that would be the opposite of the "reviewed packets" page and wouldn't be used for editing the packets
Verified on QA.
Elapsed: 0:00:00.000642