Progress review agenda 21 June 2022
Hi @lathrops1 @Kireev @latternm @ErinS @deniskar @douglassue @jordandc @jeffbeckncbi
(cc @John.kopanas @danjela @DioneMentis @sidorelauku @bela @vignesh03 @Shanthi_B @pokhi @shubtiwari)
Here is the agenda for the progress review meeting today. NCBI team please free to comment here if you want to discuss anything else today.
Update on current development focus
We have started the book versions front end work, so that is now the focus alongside the back end book versions work and writing of automated tests.
Decision on 'Apply to all' for grants and funding
We would like to finalise scoping of priority features which means we would like a decision on the grants 'Apply to all' toggle this week, if possible. I don't think we need to discuss this today, I just wanted to raise it here to make sure we prioritise that decision.
Permissions and teams for book versions
How will new book versions' teams work
We need to decide on how teams will work for book versions. Stacy has indicated that sometimes there is a new team for a new version.
Teams for book versions could work in one of three ways:
- We copy over the team to all new versions (Although Stacy has said that we need to have different teams sometimes so this likely would not work, e.g. NAP)
- We start with a new team in the new version, and have permission for the person who created the new version, and more people could be added to the team at that stage. (This is the simplest for development and allows different teams per version)
- We allow a choice when we create a new version asking the user 'What team would you like for the new version?' with two options: A) 'Continue with the same book team' or B) 'Start new book team'. (This is the most flexible for the user but requires added development time, although this option could be done as a future development with potential migration for existing books, so if option 2 is chosen this could be done later.)
Our suggestion is therefore to proceed with route 2 for now.
Other permissions for new book versions
If the new version has a new team: When a new version (e.g. version 2) is created, what will users part of book version 1 team see? As in the screenshot below, they will see book version 2 in the dropdown, but when they select book version 2 they could either:
i) See a message 'You don't have access to this version', or
ii) See the full book but it's read only unless they are also added to book version 2 team
Are teams in previous versions editable?
This is a separate question which applies to all 3 routes for teams: If we create a new version, is the team on the original version locked or editable (i.e. can you still add and remove people from the original version)?
#1170: Add chapter files to Book TOC package for NCBI wholebook PDF build
The use case is that: BCMS systems require book images and supplementary file at time of TOC ingest so that they can generate one PDF for the complete book from all of its components.
Our proposed solution is to:
- Add the following files types to Book TOC package and send the package in same process as currently done:
- images
- suppl
- converted chapter
- Build this type of TOC package only when a a chapter-processed book has the setting ON for "display book-level PDF"
Note for the files types: only include files corresponding to the Published chapter (or latest published chapter if there are multiple published versions). This is the <?version ?>
specified in the TOC.xml
Stacy asked to add this to today's agenda and replied that:
The one point I think might not be accurate in the agreed implementation is this:
Note for the files types: only include files corresponding to the Published chapter (or latest published chapter if there are multiple published versions). This is the
<?version ?>
specified in the TOC.xml A user might decided to revert to a previous published chapter, so it should not always be the *latest" published chapter. It should be the published version that the user "last" published.
The scope is accurate based on #640 (closed) and how TOCs currently work. We can discuss it.
#1183 (closed) and #1235 (closed) (agreements checks migration testing blockers)
Can we schedule a call with Denis and Giannis for this week to look at the agreement checks together?