2019-06-25 Meeting notes

Announcements and discussion

Who is cycling off this year? Thanks for the members who may be cycling off.

• Patrick! Thank you for all of your work and we will miss you!

Later discussions

User Forum: Ready for Community Developer status

• Maggie and Lydia submitted a 5-10 min presentation about the new status – an introduction and overview. Might want to run some of the content by Christine, Lora, and Laney to make sure it’s all good.

Question about how to become a new Community Developer – is there on info on how to get started?

• Laney has been working on this. Laney usually sets up a Zoom meeting to make sure they can get started.

Old business tickets

https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-557

Patrick

New comments on ticket and on April Dev Pri meeting notes.

Still not enough actionable info. Keep it closed (can reopen later if more info).

https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-805

Patrick

Decision notes from May:

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.

Lora will need more time to read through Nancy’s comment.

Bo and Nancy’s are two different tickets but will need to be fixed at the same time. If conflicting audiences, which is the tie breaker? – Lora will leave a comment to ask.

Keep in Awaiting More Info until remaining questions are answered.

Reviewing Ready for Development tickets: Bug kanban board (##/58 tickets)

Terra

1. ANW-149

   1. yes

   2. yes

   3. not sure/phydesc imported fine for me.

2. ANW-170

   1. yes

   2. yes

   3. no (works correctly in sandbox). But, I agree about maybe changing date picker, so it doesn’t block ‘date expression’ field.

3. ANW-365

   1. yes

   2. yes

   3. ask Christine if updated based on other ticket updates.

4. ANW-369

   1. yes

   2. no? higher priority re: accessibility?

   3. yes

Alicia

1. ANW-347

   1. y

2. ANW-234

   1. y

3. ANW-251

   1.  

4. ANW-262

   1. n

5. ANW-261

   1. n

   2. Same issue as above

Edgar

1. ANW-694

   1. Yes

   2. It still appears that the whole citation generation process has an issue, should the ticket be updated?

2. ANW-705

   1. No

   2. This is stale (a year old) and no update was provided on specifics of where span tags are being problematic. Recommend closing.

3. ANW-724

   1. No?

   2. Priority is set to Major.

4. ANW-736

   1. Yes

   2. The bug might be difficult to find/fix but otherwise should be ok for a Community Developer to attempt it.

5. ANW-739

   1. Yes

6. ANW-750

   1. Yes

7. ANW-751

   1. Yes?

   2. Priority is Major but it seems doable.

8. ANW-752

   1. Yes

9. ANW-757

   1. Yes

   2. Priority is Major but should this be set to Minor?

1. ANW-694: yes

2. ANW-705: CLOSE; Edgar will leave comment that not enough specifity to do work

3. ANW-724: yes

4. ANW-736: pull request all ready in – keep as is

5. ANW-739: yes

6. ANW-750: yes

7. ANW-751: pull request all ready in – keep as is; Laney will check that it is resolved

8. ANW-752: yes

9. ANW-757: yes; change priority to Minor

Maggie

1. ANW-758

   1. No – because involves different problems with SUI pdf exports and PUI pdf exports

   2. n/a

2. ANW-760

   1. No – priority is major

   2. n/a

3. ANW-782

   1. Yes? – minor priority and explains changes in code needed

4. ANW-783

   1. No – major priority and involves search

5. ANW-784

   1. 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

   2. Overlaps with Patrick’s answer re: ANW-504

6. ANW-787

   1. Yes?

   2. Not sure exactly what this is describing, tabbing through seemed fine, can Laney offer clarification in description?

7. ANW-792

   1. Yes? – minor bug, however changes needed aren’t described

8. ANW-823 – this issue is now CLOSED

9. ANW-880

   1. No – might have been a good candidate (especially with Dartmoth plugin) however it looks like work is already being done on it

1. ANW-758: no

2. ANW-760: no

3. ANW-782: yes

4. ANW-783: no

5. ANW-784: no

6. ANW-787: ping Melissa again – is this still an issue? I tried tabbing through and didn’t have any issues. Separate issue: that there is no visual indication of focus for the expand me button. If we close the original ticket than create new ticket for this visual issue. Lydia will check on it, too.

7. ANW-792: not sure this is wrong – OAI will return deleted records (some people search for deleted records this way) what is in the deleted records table. Christine will check the spec. Change to CLOSE. Behaving as intended, but if you want to propose an enhancement create a new ticket.

8. ANW-823 – this issue is now CLOSED

9. ANW-880: work being done so keep as is

William

Lydia

1. ANW-249

   1. maybe? it sounds as simple as adding “Identifier” to the sort dropdown menu and its resulting action

   2. minor priority could be trivial?

2. ANW-276

   1. probably not - not sure how complex it would be

   2. still a major usability issue

3. ANW-275

   1. probably not - not sure how complex it would be

   2. priority major, could be minor, but is an annoying issue

4. ANW-288

   1. looks like it’s done. close ticket?

5. ANW-345

   1. already closed. great!

6. ANW-292

   1. probably not, sounds complicated

7. ANW-316

   1. not sure

   2. didn’t have time to check if this was still an issue but was noted recently

8. ANW-308

   1. not sure

   2. priority major, maybe could be minor?

1. ANW-249: yes

2. ANW-276: no

3. ANW-275: no

4. ANW-288: pull request in – keep as is

5. ANW-345: already closed

6. ANW-292: no

7. ANW-316: pull request in – keep as is

8. ANW-308: no

Julia Lydia

1. ANW-323

   1. this is a catchcall for issues on a theme. Most of those issues are resolved and the rest are in ready for implementation. Close this ticket?

2. ANW-604

   1. seems to be resolved. Close?

3. ANW-425

   1. no? Perhaps too complex

   2. major priority, major UX/accessibility issue

4. ANW-635

   1. need to investigate more

5. ANW-652

   1. it seems like improvement has been done but that it didn’t help Cory’s particular issue. Should we close this and ask him to file a new ticket?

6. ANW-664

   1. need to investigate more

7. ANW-665

   1. maybe? It could be a simple fix, but I’m not sure how complicated it would be.

8. ANW-691

   1. need to investigate more

Reviewing Ready for Development tickets: Feature request kanban board (65 tickets)

William

1. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-616

Edgar

1. 1. No - Not for Community Developer

   2. This is a high priority touching importing, otherwise should be ready it seems

2. 1. This one’s a weird one… I would simply say no to Community Developer due to it also being an importer, but I am unsure what direction this issue is headed. aspace-import-excel plugin exists and I believe supports up to the current version, but I am also unsure how well supported the plugin is or will continue to be. This feature should really be in the core code and maintained internally, but if it remains a separate plugin at Harvard, perhaps Community Developers could assist in maintaining it there, if Harvard requires it.

3. 1. No

   2. It appears that Mark Custer wanted to have an outside entity review the new PUI before release and provide suggested fixes. Does this make the issue out of scope now? Should a separate audit ticket be created with a plan after the fact since the new PUI is released? This ticket could be reworded and reused but this isn’t work that would be done by devs, it requires some management-like work.

4. 1. Yes

5. 1. Yes

   2. This seems like something a Community Developer could modify/investigate/fix. The parent schema is within the source of the generated doc. It might require some investigation into yard.

6. 1. Yes, a Community Developer should be able to implement this

   2. Has a different date picker been selected? More information might be required for a Community Developer to be able to pick this ticket up.

7. 1. No

   2. This is a major priority and might require more information to be completed.

8. 1. Yes, a Community Developer should be able to work on this task

   2. Should Priority be lowered from Major? To Minor?

Terra

Lydia

1. 1. no - not for a community developer

   2. is there enough info. What should an unpublished archival object look like?

   3. Priority is ok at low.

2. 1. no - not for a community developer - I don’t know if a community developer would know how to do this.

   2. a nice usability feature

   3. priority is low because of existing workarounds

3. 1. possibly, but I don’t know if a community developer would know how to do this

   2. a nice usability feature

   3. priority is low and could be trivial instead

4. 1. no - not for a community developer - I don’t know if a community developer would know how to do this, particularly if it automatically strips permissions (which would be helpful)

   2. a nice usability feature

   3. priority minor ok

5. 1. no - not for a community developer, it sounds like the datepicker currently used is part of a larger discussion

   2. a nice usability feature

   3. priority minor ok

6. 1. no - sounds complex

   2. a nice usability feature

   3. priority minor ok

7. 1. no - this involves some architecture planning that probably the program team only knows

   2. a nice usability feature

   3. priority minor ok

8. 1. Close this ticket. This ticket was in response to an older method of reorder. I can’t currently think of another pressing need for an “undo” function.

Patrick

1. 1. Yes

   2. Just moving the location of the revision statement notes

2. 1. No

   2. As of Feb. 2018 we said we needed more information about the size/scope of the work

3. 1. No

   2. Too large of scope and already part of Staff Interface working group specs

4. 1. Yes

   2. Seems to be just pulling some data into a form.

5. 1. Yes

   2. However, don’t know how intricate RDE work is.

6. 1. Yes

   2. Would also need to update Repository preferences to add this as an allowable column

7. 1. Yes

   2. I think there are some questions about whether this is a unique issue though

8. 1. Yes

1. ANW-352: Change to Awaiting More Info; needs more visual/wireframe – what will this look like? Is it a sub-record or will it just look like a sub-record? Lydia looked into this.

2. ANW-207: no

3. ANW-561: no

4. ANW-210: yes

5. ANW-384: yes; Patrick will leave comment not to add a new linking to location (3 modals)

6. ANW-329: yes

7. ANW-253: work being done – keep as is

8. ANW-280: pull request in – keep as is

Julia

Alicia

Extras (Lydia took them)

1. 1. no - too complex for community dev.

   2. worthwhile project - is spec ok?

   3. minor priority seems ok

2. 1. no - too complex for community dev.

   2. worthwhile project - is spec ok?

   3. minor priority seems ok

3. 1. unsure if this is still an issue, could possibly close?

4. 1. no - unsure if community developers would have access to this security area, otherwise seems relatively straightforward to find the right code to fix.

5. 1. maybe? It sounds like an HM plugin for adapting the Staff Interface might be able to be copied to the PUI, but I don’t know if it’s that easy.

6. 1. no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

   2. priority of major is good because of accessibility being protected by law.

7. 1. no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

8. 1. no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

   2. priority major, not sure it should be minor, but it would be a helpful function

9. 1. maybe? I’m not sure how difficult it would be to copy code from the Resource record template and also map the data when it is spawned into a Resource.

   2. priority minor seems ok