Item | Who | Notes | Decision |
---|
Announcements and discussion | Maggie | How to publicize new Ready for Community Developer status? Dev Pri survey draft Are the goals reasonable? Will the results be actionable? Category list missing anything? Should anything be collapsed? Who else should look at this – UAC and TAC? Jessica Crouch?
Please also fill out strengths in the Dev. Pri. roster! This helps us identify areas of specialization need: Development Prioritization subteam | New status/concept (“Ready for Community Developer”) Could be a feature in the monthly update that goes out ASpace user forum in August – could someone talk about this there, if not a full-blown hack-a-thon
Survey Survey seems straight-to-the-point Could be helpful in prioritizing Two other AS surveys out now or soon – it’s an ok number. We should make sure not to send ours out the same week, but otherwise will be fine. All please leave comments on survey draft.
|
Old business tickets | | | |
Jira Legacy |
---|
server | System JIRA |
---|
serverId | 36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f |
---|
key | ANW-785 |
---|
|
| Maggie (for Lydia) | Selfishly, I would like this to PASS | Priority: low How would this display? What if there are thousands of containers? Would it take a long time to load? Would it be a pop-up window (like the create Agent box) or take you to a different screen. Staff interface group recs has this recommendation (to pop out a window), w/o all top container mgmt functionality. (But it doesn’t have accession recs ability). Is all that’s needed a list of containers? Or is functionality wanted? Keep in Awaiting more Information.
|
Jira Legacy |
---|
server | System JIRA |
---|
serverId | 36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f |
---|
key | ANW-508 |
---|
|
| Maggie (for Lydia) | This ticket is super old, vague, and probably very difficult to manage. LT proposes to CLOSE this ticket. MH notes: Cory’s recent note indicates that this ticket is a duplicate to in-progress agent work. | Christine can link the ticket to the work going on for Agents. Close. |
Jira Legacy |
---|
server | System JIRA |
---|
serverId | 36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f |
---|
key | ANW-526 |
---|
|
| Maggie (for Lydia) | This ticket is super old, vague, I don’t know that we even do deaccession records (besides an event). LT proposes to CLOSE this ticket. MH notes: Can add 0 to many external docs to deaccession event. Deaccession sub-record does not allow any external docs to be attached. | Close. |
Jira Legacy |
---|
server | System JIRA |
---|
serverId | 36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f |
---|
key | ANW-557 |
---|
|
| Patrick | Need more contextual information about what would "look better". Also need clarity on on the "add into the Edit Basic Information the Resource or Accession number and links back to the component". Do they just want links back to the linked resource/accession? No current update from Kari. | Close. Leave a comment that closing the ticket because not enough information. If anyone feels strongly about it, they can re-open the ticket and provide more information. |
Jira Legacy |
---|
server | System JIRA |
---|
serverId | 36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f |
---|
key | ANW-805 |
---|
|
| Patrick | Ideally pass. Not exactly sure what's causing this, but can confirm that this bug appears. From what I can tell by researching <dao> structure standards, xlink attributes are technically not allowed. Would need to speak to development team about the best way to correct this. | Leave comment asking for a suggestion of what it should look like. Awaiting More Info. If a good answer comes in, then we can pass or close based on that. |
Jira Legacy |
---|
server | System JIRA |
---|
serverId | 36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f |
---|
key | ANW-504 |
---|
|
| Patrick | From Mark Custer: I think the primary use case for this is MaRC exports. Right now, there is no way for ASpace to create a MARC record that does not have a 1xx field but does have at least one 7xx field. Such a record is certainly valid in MARC, though. So, to illustrate the issue, if you import a MaRC record into ASpace that has no 1xx field and one 7xx field, you wind up with one agent linked to the record as a creator. Once you export that record, then you wind up with a MaRC record with that agent in the 1xx field. Of course, if such a feature were added to ASpace (and that depends on how closely aligned ASpace wants to be with MARC), then I suspect that all of the creators already attached in the first position would need to be updated during a database migration to include the "primary creator" data attribute. Would like someone from DevPri team to give thoughts on whether this is a good value-add for work. | Not addressed in Agent specification. A known issue for users who want to use MARC exports seamlessly. Migration issue makes it a larger effort. Building it in for now going forward would be easy. Could say no migration, and people can clean up their data if it is important to them/they use MARC exports. Or migration could take what it does now – take the first Agent as 1xx. Could use more info about UI expectation and edge cases. More spec’ed out. Tag people (Rachel Searcy, Sue Luftshein, Cory Ninmer) on the listserv and email on the listserv. Linking 784 and 504. Change status 784 to Awaiting More Info. Not ready to be worked on because of other pending issue. |
Reviewing Ready for Development tickets: Bug kanban board (58 tickets total) | | Each person has been assigned 8 tickets from the bug kanban board that currently have the Ready for Implementation status. Please review the tickets assigned to you and make recommendations on: Candidate for Ready for Community Developer? YES/NO (primary concern) Whether the ticket is still relevant, its priority ranking, and the tags (secondary concerns)
We’ll discuss candidates for Ready for Community Developer as a group, and can also address any secondary concerns that arise during the ticket reviews. | |
| Patrick | ANW-138 no According to Christine this would have to be broken into smaller tasks, and upgrading CodeMirror could be risky.
ANW-137 no According to Laney and Lora there is a larger issue. Would need info on larger issue first.
ANW-148 yes “Per Dev prioritization meeting, we will "fix" this by implementing improved error reporting indicating when the OCLC endpoint is no longer reachable, but there is little more we can do at this juncture. Will add a quick ping to the endpoint before attempting to do anything else, and if that does not succeed will inform the user that the OCLC service appears to be down.”
ANW-164 no need decision on whether to add create also, this isn’t really an issue. you can just scroll down and dropdown is no longer obscuredyes
ANW-179 yes would need to work with dev team about views and exporters for agents
no
ANW-172 yes
ANW-162 no no longer an issue. couldn’t replicate
ANW-160 yes
| ANW-138 - no ANW-137 - no ANW-148 - yes ANW-164 - yes ANW-179 - no ANW-172 - yes ANW-162 - CLOSE ANW-160 - yes
|
| Terra | ANW-157 y/n other concerns?no able to transfer resource to new repository with no issue (says: Transfer Successful. Records may take a moment to appear in the target repository while re-indexing takes place.)
ANW-156 unsure
ANW-152 unsure
ANW-145 yes based on comments, issue still exists
ANW-149
ANW-170 ANW-365 ANW-369
| ANW-157 - CLOSE; leave a comment saying this ticket lacks enough info about the issue ANW-156 - CLOSE; EAD does not allow for chunking out unitid field, would be a good use for a custom plug-in based on your institution’s id conventions ANW-152 - no ANW-145 - yes
|
| Alicia | ANW-194 y/nother concerns?, possibly here: https://github.com/archivesspace/archivesspace/blob/4048cbce64186bacaa96f2157349530573a184e9/frontend/app/assets/javascripts/rde.js ? was able to replicate
ANW-205 y, potentially same JS file or one of the RDE .rb files concern here is conditionally required fields, like when a title is blank but date is complete. May need to spec out more completely
ANW-206 maybe? Not able to replicate but was an issue recently
ANW-347 y
ANW-234 y
ANW-251
ANW-262 n
ANW-261 n Same issue as above
| ANW-194 - yes ANW-205 - no ANW-206 - yes; Christine and Alicia will leave a comment with info about recent incidents
|
| William | ANW-249 y/n other concerns?
ANW-276 ANW-275 ANW-288 ANW-345 ANW-292 ANW-316 ANW-308
| |
| Julia | ANW-323 y/n other concerns?
ANW-604 ANW-425 ANW-635 ANW-652 ANW-664 ANW-665 ANW-691
| |
| Edgar | ANW-694 y/n other concernsYes It still appears that the whole citation generation process has an issue, should the ticket be updated?
ANW-705 No This is stale (a year old) and no update was provided on specifics of where span tags are being problematic. Recommend closing.
ANW-724 No? Priority is set to Major.
ANW-736 Yes The bug might be difficult to find/fix but otherwise should be ok for a Community Developer to attempt it.
ANW-739 Yes
ANW-750 Yes
ANW-751 Yes? Priority is Major but it seems doable.
ANW-752 Yes
ANW-757 Yes Priority is Major but should this be set to Minor?
| |
| Maggie | ANW-758 No – because involves different problems with SUI pdf exports and PUI pdf exports n/a
ANW-760 No – priority is major n/a
ANW-782 Yes? – minor priority and explains changes in code needed
ANW-783 No – major priority and involves search
ANW-784 No? – think this is a “nice to have” and tagged as a bug and minor, but the standards aspect + importer/exporter make me think it might be complicated Overlaps with Patrick’s answer re: ANW-504
ANW-787 Yes? Not sure exactly what this is describing, tabbing through seemed fine, can Laney offer clarification in description?
ANW-792 Yes? – minor bug, however changes needed aren’t described
ANW-823 – this issue is now CLOSED ANW-880 No – might have been a good candidate (especially with Dartmoth plugin) however it looks like work is already being no on it
| |
Next meeting | All | Did this method work well? Should we do anything differently for June meeting? | Ready for Community Dev approach felt streamlined. Framework worked well. Any tickets moved out of Ready for Implementation is a win. Plus, making it easier for others to participate in coding. June: Keep going through remaining Ready for Implementation tickets from bug kanban board, may start going through Ready for Implementation tickets from feature requests board. |