EBMS Tickets

Story points are no more than a vague guess about which path this one's going to end up taking. Necessary context for this ticket can be found in the discussion at the end of OCEEBMS-470. Estimate could easily turn out to be too high or too low. 🙂

Here's the relevant comment from OCEEBMS-470:

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

Here's what the filtering logic does now.

1. If any topics are selected, we make sure only packets for those topics are included

2. If the Packet Name field is not empty, we make sure only packets matching the field's string are included (SQL wild cards are honored)

3. If the start date field has a date, we exclude any packets created before the date given

4. If end end date field has a date, we exclude any packets created after the date given

5. If neither the Archived box nor the Legacy box is checked, we narrow the set of packets selected to those with an active_status of 'A'

6. If either the Archived box or the Legacy box is checked, and the Active box is not checked, we narrow the set of packets selected to those with an active_status of 'I'

7. If the Archived box is checked and the Legacy box is unchecked, we only include packets created on or after 2012-11-12

8. If the Legacy box is check and neither the Archived box nor the Active box is checked, we only include packets created before 2012-11-12

9. If the Active box and the Legacy box are both checked, and the Archived box is not checked, we include packets which have an active_status of 'A' OR which were created before 2012-11-12

10. If the Unreviewed box is checked we only include packets for which no reviews exist for any of the articles in the packet

So now I need to know what changes need to be made to this logic and/or the interface.

At the very least, Unreviewed/Reviewed should be on a different line, ...

We don't currently have a Reviewed checkbox on the form. Are you saying we should add that checkbox on a separate line, move the Unreviewed checkbox to the same line, and apply the following logic?

1. If the Unreviewed box is checked and the Reviewed box is unchecked, only include packets for which no reviews exist for any of the articles in the packet

2. If the Reviewed box is checked and the Unreviewed box is unchecked, only include packets for which at least one review is found for any of the articles in the packet

3. If neither the Reviewed box nor the Unreviewed box is checked, or if both boxes are checked, ignore the presence or absence of reviews for articles in a packet

 If it is decided that the last option in the comment quoted above from OCEEBMS-470 should be implemented, would that mean we would leave the Reviewed and Unreviewed boxes off the form for this page?

Bounced the assignment temporarily to you, ~juther, for determination of the new requirements. You can assign it back to me when they're ready.

Victoria and I discussed this today and here's what we came up with. Kind of a two-pronged approach.

On the VIEW/EDIT PACKETS page:

• Please remove the option to view Legacy packets.

• Please group the checkboxes for Active and Archived on the same line.

• Please add a second line of checkboxes with the following options: Reviewed and Unreviewed.

• We would like to change the definition of "Unreviewed" to refer to a packet that contains NO articles that have been reviewed. In other words, a packet is either reviewed or unreviewed, but it cannot be both. The logic you outlined in your comment above for the Reviewed and Unreviewed options is correct.

• The default selections should be Active, Reviewed, and Unreviewed.

Additionally, we would like to create a separate UNREVIEWED PACKETS page:

• The UNREVIEWED PACKETS page would be structured similar to the REVIEWED PACKETS page, with the following differences:

  • Please add fields for the Packet Creation Date as opposed to the Reviewed Date.

  • Please remove the stars beside each packet name (if it's easier to copy the code for reviewed packets and leave the stars, this is fine. We just aren't sure how we would use them.)

  • Please remove the CREATE REPORT button above the list of packets.

  • Please change the last column above the list of packets from Updated to Posted.

• The packet names should be clickable and provide a page to view the contents of the packet, as is the case for the REVIEWED PACKETS page, but with the following differences from that page:

  • Please remove the CREATE REPORT button above the list of articles.

  • Please change the Updated heading to Posted above the list of articles.

  • Please remove the Disposition heading above the list of articles.

  • Please remove the option to SHOW DETAILS under each article.

  • Please remove the REVIEWER FILES section at the bottom of the page.

  • Please keep all other functionality and display characteristics that we have on the REVIEWED PACKETS pages, including, for example, the display of high priority and other tags, related articles, Board manager comments, and article state information.

Hopefully, I haven't created a monster! Assigning this back to you to review and adjust story points if necessary. Thank you!

Thanks, Robin. Let's do a separate ticket for the new report.

I wrote:

If the Unreviewed box is checked we only include packets for which no reviews exist for any of the articles in the packet

Then you wrote:

We would like to change the definition of "Unreviewed" to refer to a packet that contains NO articles that have been reviewed.

It's not clear to me what the difference is. Can you clarify, ~juther?

Yes, I think I can clarify. 

With the statement you wrote ("If the Unreviewed box is checked we only include packets for which no reviews exist for any of the articles in the packet"), it's possible that a packet could be both Reviewed (because at least one article has a completed review) and Unreviewed (because at least one article does not have any completed reviews).

In the second statement ("We would like to change the definition of "Unreviewed" to refer to a packet that contains NO articles that have been reviewed."), we are trying to allow for discrete categorization of a packet as either Reviewed or Unreviewed, but not both. In this case, NONE of the articles should have a completed review. This way we won't be reviewing the same packet on multiple screens and deciding what to do with it.

Hopefully that helps - if not let me know! Thanks.

Well, that's what I thought I was saying with "no reviews exist for any of the articles in the packet" (if we said "no parent is still alive for any of the children in the orphanage" wouldn't we surprised to learn that some of the children had parents which were still alive?) but I think what I've implemented matches what you want.

This seems to be working well, but I have a small wording change request. We are all so used to referring to these packets as "reviewed" and "unreviewed" that we'd like to preserve that wording. However, we like your more descriptive text as well. So, I've proposed a combination. 🙂

For the second set of checkboxes, could you please say:

REVIEW STATUSES TO INCLUDE:

• • • Reviewed (packets that have at least one review for any article)

• • • Unreviewed (packets that have no reviews for any article)

Wording for checkboxes adjusted as requested.

Verified on DEV. Thanks!

Victoria noticed that when you filter the results on this page to view only Reviewed packets (unchecking the Unreviewed packets box), only a couple of packets display on each page of results (somewhere between 2-4 packets per page is what we're seeing) rather than the usual 10 packets per page.

I believe I have that fixed on DEV and QA. As a side note, I noticed that there's a little drop down labeled "VIEW" which seems to toggle between viewing just reviewed packets and all packets. Unless there's some subtitle nuance I'm missing you might want to add a ticket to remove that dropdown at some point in the future as redundant.

Much better, thank you!

And you're right, we should remove that VIEW dropdown now that we have such advanced filtering options above. I'll add a ticket to Canyonlands.

Verified on QA.

Verified on PROD.