2019-05-28 Meeting notes

Announcements and discussion

Maggie

How to publicize new Ready for Community Developer status?

• How and when?

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 Sub-Team

• 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

  • Submit a proposal for something along the lines of an announcement to a presentation. CFP should go out later this week.

  • Add to TAC agenda next week.

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

ANW-785: As an archivist, I would like to access all applicable Top Containers directly from a Resource or Accession viewReady for Implementation

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.

ANW-508: As an archivist, I want to assert relationships from an agent to resource(s) outside my application / institution.Closed-Will Not Do

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.

ANW-526: As an Archivist, I want to link 0 to many External Documents to a Deaccession recordClosed-Will Not Do

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.

ANW-557: As an Archivist, I would like to have a link to the Resource or Accession component that the DO is linked to visible in both the Staff Edit and View interface.Closed-Will Not Do

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.

ANW-805: EAD validation errors for dao audience attributeClosed-Complete

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.

ANW-504: As an Archivist, I want to identify an Agent linked to a (Resource | Digital Object | Accession | Resource Component | Digital Object Component) as "Primary"Closed-Complete

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

1. ANW-138

   1. no

   2. According to Christine this would have to be broken into smaller tasks, and upgrading CodeMirror could be risky.

2. ANW-137

   1. no

   2. According to Laney and Lora there is a larger issue. Would need info on larger issue first.

3. ANW-148

   1. yes

   2. “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.”

4. ANW-164

   1. yes

5. ANW-179

   1. no

6. ANW-172

   1. yes

7. ANW-162

   1. no

   2. no longer an issue. couldn’t replicate

8. ANW-160

   1. yes
      
      

1. ANW-138 - no

2. ANW-137 - no

3. ANW-148 - yes

4. ANW-164 - yes

5. ANW-179 - no

6. ANW-172 - yes

7. ANW-162 - CLOSE

8. ANW-160 - yes

Terra

1. ANW-157

   1. no

   2. 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.)

2. ANW-156

   1. unsure

3. ANW-152

   1. unsure

4. ANW-145

   1. yes

   2. based on comments, issue still exists

5. ANW-149

   1.  

6. ANW-170

7. ANW-365

8. ANW-369

1. ANW-157 - CLOSE; leave a comment saying this ticket lacks enough info about the issue

2. 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

3. ANW-152 - no

4. ANW-145 - yes

Alicia

1. ANW-194

   1. y, possibly here: https://github.com/archivesspace/archivesspace/blob/4048cbce64186bacaa96f2157349530573a184e9/frontend/app/assets/javascripts/rde.js ?

   2. was able to replicate

2. ANW-205

   1. y, potentially same JS file or one of the RDE .rb files

   2. concern here is conditionally required fields, like when a title is blank but date is complete. May need to spec out more completely

3. ANW-206

   1. maybe?

   2. Not able to replicate but was an issue recently

4. ANW-347

   1. y

5. ANW-234

   1. y

6. ANW-251

   1.  

7. ANW-262

   1. n

8. ANW-261

   1. n

   2. Same issue as above

1. ANW-194 - yes

2. ANW-205 - no

3. ANW-206 - yes; Christine and Alicia will leave a comment with info about recent incidents

4.  

William

1. ANW-249

   1. y/n

   2. other concerns?

2. ANW-276

3. ANW-275

4. ANW-288

5. ANW-345

6. ANW-292

7. ANW-316

8. ANW-308

Julia

1. ANW-323

   1. y/n

   2. other concerns?

2. ANW-604

3. ANW-425

4. ANW-635

5. ANW-652

6. ANW-664

7. ANW-665

8. ANW-691

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?

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 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.