EBMS Tickets

It doesn't look as if the discussion Robin called for in her 2013-03-06 18:43 comment ever took place. Should we ignore the problem of meetings for an ad-hoc group and just implement what the original request asked for? Or should we talk about the problem Robin raised?

Victoria: I've added you as a watcher for this issue. I'll be calling to discuss parts that need clarification.

Victoria's checking with Margaret to find out how we should proceed.

Ironically, I'd typed in the following comment, but it hadn't gone through yet, when I saw Bob's comment pop up. So after logging in AGAIN:

I did talk to Margaret and this will have to wait for Robin to return. She likely uses ad-hoc groups much more often than the rest of us, so we really can't say how it would affect us if ad-hoc groups were not included in the drop down lists. I'll ask her to put this issue on next week's EBMS Meeting agenda so we can discuss exactly what we want.

Thanks. Yes, one of JIRA's many bugs is that if your session times out, the progress indicator for a comment posting action will just spin, and JIRA will never tell you "I'm sorry, but I timed you out, and that comment is never going to be stored."

This one's on hold until Robin has a chance to weigh in with a decision about how to handle ad-hoc group meetings.

So, ad hoc groups pose a bit of a problem.

I currently have a number of calendar events that were created for my working groups using ad hoc groups. I believe I could edit those events to use the subgroup (and I'm using the subgroup from now on when creating new events), so those would display in the drop-down lists for my Board once we made these proposed changes. This is not a problem for me.

However, if any of us use ad-hoc groups in the future, we would not be able to place an article onto an agenda if the ad-hoc groups do not display on the full citation page. I don't think we should take away the ability to do that. Therefore, I think our options are to:

(1) leave things as is and accept that we will have really long drop-down menus (future & past) containing all meetings
(2) require ad-hoc groups to be associated with a Board If we did this, we would want to be able to associate a group to more than one Board to account for groups that span members of multiple Boards
(3) add a separate drop-down menu on the full citation page for ad-hoc group meetings

Could we discuss the technical feasibility/LOE of approaches 2&3 (and any other ideas?)? Thanks.

We discussed the options at last week's status meeting, and Robin and I continued the discussions this morning. She decided we'll go with a variation on the second option above. The system will provide a way to associate an ad-hoc group with one or more boards, but the association will be optional.

Here's the new table definition:

CREATE TABLE ebms_ad_hoc_group_board
   (group_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
    board_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
 PRIMARY KEY (group_id, board_id),
 FOREIGN KEY (group_id) REFERENCES ebms_ad_hoc_group (group_id),
 FOREIGN KEY (board_id) REFERENCES ebms_board (board_id))
      ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

Should the software also look for meetings associated with subgroups of the current board?

Yes, it should look for subgroup meetings, too. Thanks.

Implemented on DEV; ready for user testing.

In addition to the new table definition:

• R12150 trunk/ebms/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/groups.inc

• R12150 trunk/ebms/ebms.nci.nih.gov/modules/custom/ebms/citations.inc

Promoted to QA.

This filtering seems to be working correctly for future meetings but I am still seeing all meetings in the past meetings drop-down.

Fixed on DEV; please check there.

Verified on DEV.

Verified on DEV (marking this QA verified)

Verified meeting dropdown filtering on Prod. I didn't verify the ad-hoc group changes - will wait until we have a real case for creating an ad-hoc group associated with a board.