Are we going to create a new kanban row for shuttling tickets that subteams need to review?
Clarification of Jira workflow: besides commenting on tickets, most team members don’t need to do much with Jira. Dev. Pri. co-chairs meet later in the week to move the tickets on the boards. Thanks to Daniel for catching if we move a ticket to the wrong position!
Tickets
Ticket theme for today’s meeting: mostly bugs and usability tickets
Unsure what to do with this one. Assuming this means the EAD/EAC/MARCXML schema, as any invalid AS record should already fail on import. Agree in principle but unclear about steps to implementation. Is there any existing validation against these standards or is it just the AS schema? Where do the two diverge? Recommend change to “Awaiting more information”
2. Followed steps in ticket but could not replicate in version 2.7.0 - already fixed? Tried both removing the instances and deleting the objects without removing the instances and all was ok.
3. Note from Christine in November 2018 indicates that Lora did some research into this - what was the result of that? Support passing the ticket but unsure what additional information is needed. Changing this seems trivial but would require a db migration
Issue exists in 2.7. Solution requires changing the logic used to generate agents from user records. The simplest method would be to name the agent after the username, since that already has to be unique. Recommend changing priority to minor, adding the solution, and changing to ready for implementation.
Could not reproduce, submitter confirmed that this is not a problem anymore. Close as done.
Not clear this behavior is incorrect, commented asking for clarification.
Keep priority at minor. Add a note saying model off of agent/subject merging?Pass.
Thinking most <extref> would be within the text of a note (s&c, related materials, etc), not sure there is a need to map this to an EAD element. Close.
Confirmed in sandbox still an issue in v2.7.0. Pass.
ANW-736
-
Getting issue details...STATUS
fixed the reorder issue.
Github issue to investigate removal of parent_name exists
Depending on Dev response, wait or abandon?
Cannot reproduce this issue, I have asked the reporter for reproduction steps.
Recommend we wait for more information.
From Christine: “For the 2.7.0 release we’ve now added a configuration option to the end of the Config file - AppConfig[:limit_csv_fields] . By default this is set to true, to limit the fields in those CSVs to selected columns on the screen. If you set it to false it will work the way it did previously”
Does 2.7.0 technically resolve this issue by allowing to revert to “old way”? If the case, I move to close this ticket for now.