Progress review agenda 13 September 2022
Hi @lathrops1 @Kireev @latternm @ErinS @deniskar @douglassue @jeffbeckncbi
(cc @bela @danjela @DioneMentis @John.kopanas @pokhi @rudresh @Shanthi_B @shubtiwari @sidorelauku @vignesh03)
Project update
A reminder that there is no release this week. A release will be done next Monday, or Tuesday at the latest, to deploy as many MVP issues as possible to the NCBI testing site.
Development and QA focus this week
- Work on drag and drop and critical styling fixing for #1369 (Large chapter-processed books performance issue)
- Implement QA feedback on #1395 (closed) (Unable to submit source files so processing is stuck for domain)
- Work on #1346 (closed) (Remove content type for chapter processed books at the book level for chapter processed books)
- Work on #1391 (chapter date and label not passed to TOC)
- Work on specific further case for TOC entries in #1219 (closed) (Special character: & not tagged properly)
- Implement QA feedback on #1149 (Previously published chapter that has a replacement chapter file version in previewing status does not show original published version of chapter on toc)
- Work on #1361 (closed) (Timeouts when uploading converted file >10 MB)
- Work on #1372 (closed) (Contributor groups with roles)
- Work on #1407 (Processing instructions in Word and PDF chapter processed book metadata)
- Finalise #1165 (closed) after discussion below is resolved (Changes to when we show Display and Create PDF settings)
- Work on #1151 (closed) MVP scope only (Allow "Book submit ID" in the Metadata UI to be editable by a system admin)
- Work on #1414 (closed) (Can’t publish collection TOC)
- Implement QA feedback on #1184 (closed) (Book source type)
- QA and finalise #1406 (closed) (Do not overwrite or Processing Instructions in the <book-part-wrapper of PDF chapters converted XML)
- QA any other MRs and issues that need it as they become ready
- Complete priority automated test work and update QA list
- Review !1068 (merged) from Denis for login with non-unique emails
- Review code for work that has already passed QA (and any other MRs that get passed this week):
-
#1404 (closed) (Introduce
<?eissn 2050-4373?>
Processing Instruction into collection metadata when collection has Electronic ISSN) - #1036 (Book TOC invalid xml created: xmlParsePITarget: invalid name prefix 'xml')
- #1386 (closed) (Improve Error Messages that are thrown from Command Service)
- #992 (closed) (Submit, Reload preview, Publish wholebooks in bulk in the collection manager)
- #1377 (In chapter-processed book metadata: When OA toggle is on, and license type = 'Other', user should be required to provide a license URL)
-
#1404 (closed) (Introduce
Issues I want to provide updates on
#1332 (closed) Multi-orgs MVP scope
We are splitting out the MVP scope into a separate issue and it should be ready to review and approve tomorrow.
#1385 Introduce archiving of books and collections via Settings
We are busy updating the issue with queries and it should be ready to review and hopefully approve tomorrow.
#1165 (closed) Changes to when we show Display and Create PDF settings
We need to know the defaults of the toggles in each of the workflows where they will appear, and if they should always be be locked and editable by Sys admins only. I updated the issue with queries and Stacy can review it or assign for review as needed, and we can regroup in the project manager's call tomorrow.
#1324 (closed) Why do chapter-processed book have BCMS IDs with a .{version_number}
It has been queried why we have a default .1
appended to all chapter-processed books BCMS IDs. BCMS IDs are standardised to always have an appendage of a version number, which will always be .1
for chapter-processed books since book-level versions won't be supported for chapter-processed books at this stage. We suggest not removing this now because:
- This change would de-standardise the way BCMS IDs work which means a lot of backend development, with associated risks especially when rushed
- Having the appendage doesn't imply multiple versions of chapter-processed books, since the number is always 1, and shouldn't have negative implications for the data model
- A migration could easily make this change in future for existing books, if needed, if/once development in point 1 were done
So I suggest revisiting this issue later to determine the requirement and look at it in the broader context if needed.
To conclude
The above covers the full extent of the known MVP scope, although further NCBI testing is in progress. We'll keep you updated on our progress and will continue to review and triage testing feedback as needed.
No release to production is scheduled at this stage, although we are working towards satisfying an MVP scope to make such a release possible with mitigated risks.