[Contrib: Evaluation System] Adam's Jira's & v1.3 RC04 tag

[Adam Marshall]

Thanks Aaron, that is well beyond the call of duty - we appreciate you taking the time to help out.

adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: azeckoski at gmail.com [mailto:azeckoski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Aaron Zeckoski
> Sent: 15 July 2011 22:23
> To: Beth Kirschner
> Cc: Adam Marshall; evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
> Subject: Re: [Contrib: Evaluation System] Adam's Jira's & v1.3 RC04 tag
> 
> I will look at this JIRA when I have some spare time. Just have to do
> it outside of regular work hours. Should be this weekend.
> -AZ
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Beth Kirschner <bkirschn at umich.edu> wrote:
> > At this point, the JIRAs below have been applied to trunk _except_
> EVALSYS-1084. Given outstanding questions regarding EVALSYS-1084, I
> suggest we move forward with a final (really) v1.3 RC05 tag and deploy to the
> QA5 server next week. All remaining bugs will be resolved in the v1.4 release,
> which will be our next conversation. Barring any objections, Nicola can you let
> me know when the new tag is ready and I'll have it deployed to the QA5
> server.
> >
> > Of course I'm assuming this will all happen next week, so have a good
> weekend everyone!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Beth
> >
> > On Jul 6, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Adam Marshall wrote:
> >
> >> So in summary Marc will apply
> >>
> >> EVALSYS-1084
> >> EVALSYS-1115 (&EVALSYS-1115-1)
> >> EVALSYS-1080
> >> EVALSYS-933
> >>
> >> on Monday. And this is both 1.3 and trunk.
> >>
> >> adam
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Beth Kirschner [mailto:bkirschn at umich.edu]
> >>> Sent: 06 July 2011 16:24
> >>> To: Adam Marshall
> >>> Cc: evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org; Marc Savitsky
> >>> Subject: Re: [Contrib: Evaluation System] Adam's Jira's & v1.3 RC04 tag
> >>>
> >>> One of the concerns raised at the conference was that we haven't had a
> new
> >>> release of evaluations for a very long time because we always felt we
> were
> >>> "almost there", but never quite arrived. There are always bugs, and I
> think
> >>> we need to be draw the line in the sand at some point. I think if there
> are any
> >>> outstanding issues we consider "blockers" we should wait, otherwise we
> cut
> >>> the release.
> >>>
> >>> I'd suggest we ask Marc to apply all the patches mentioned below on
> >>> Monday, and then merge only blockers to the 1.3.x branch. JIRAs that
> might
> >>> be considered blockers are: 1084, 1080 & possibly 1094.
> >>>
> >>> More comments below. Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> - Beth
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:51 AM, Adam Marshall wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I would say that before an official release is made, the following should
> be
> >>> considered. I could get Marc to apply all the patches (except 1094) below
> but
> >>> this would have to be done next Monday.
> >>>>
> >>>> Once these are done, I think the Evaluations Tool will be something
> that we
> >>> can all be proud of, however, I'd like a 1.3.1 branch so we can keep fixing
> >>> bugs (is that the correct terminology).
> >>>>
> >>> I agree, but I'd like to slightly modify the terminology: We have a 1.3.x
> >>> branch, and we should continue merging to this branch and cut a 1.3.1
> tag at
> >>> some point in the future. I think if there's an institution (e.g. Oxford)
> that
> >>> could use a 1.3.1 tagged release without any changes, that would
> probably
> >>> be a good reason to cut the tag.
> >>>
> >>>> 1/ I think the following patch should be applied: EVALSYS-1084
> [security] -
> >>> this allows deleted results to be viewed, I think this is pretty important.
> >>>>
> >>>> The scenario we had was that a survey admin accidently set up the
> survey
> >>> so the participants could view the results. When the survey closed,
> >>> everybody got an email giving the URL of the results. When the admin
> >>> realised her mistake (with horror), she immediately deleted the survey
> to
> >>> prevent any more damage being done. She wasn't best pleased when
> she
> >>> discovered that the results hadn't actually been deleted at all.
> >>>>
> >>> I'll abstain from voting, since we'll not be using 1.3 in production. Does
> >>> anyone else want to treat this as a blocker? Before we can consider this
> for
> >>> 1.3, someone with commit rights needs to commit this to trunk.
> >>>
> >>>> 2/ I would also say that whilst we're at it EVALSYS-1115 should be
> applied.
> >>> It's a properties file fix and the latest patch 1115-1 includes fixes for both
> US
> >>> and UK date formats.
> >>>>
> >>> This risks the slippery slope of "one more bug fix" -- I'd say this fix could
> wait
> >>> for 1.3.1 or 1.4. Someone with commit rights needs to commit this to
> trunk
> >>> first.
> >>>
> >>>> 3/ I thought EVALSYS-1094 - incorrect version information had been
> fixed
> >>> but QA5 still shows v1.2.2 and the jira is still unresolved
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Until this is assigned to someone, it will likely not get fixed. I can assign
> this to
> >>> Nicola, as she has volunteered to statically update the version in the
> 1.3.x
> >>> branch, but it would be great if someone can spend some time injecting
> the
> >>> version from a maven variable.
> >>>
> >>>> 4/ EVALSYS-1080 is fairly serious for MSIE users, not sure why this
> hasn't yet
> >>> been applied
> >>>>
> >>> I'll abstain from voting, since we'll not be using 1.3 in production. Does
> >>> anyone else want to treat this as a blocker? Before we can consider this
> for
> >>> 1.3, someone with commit rights needs to commit this to trunk.
> >>>
> >>>> 5/ EVALSYS-933 has been fixed and reintroduces a significant chunk of
> >>> functionality that disappeared somewhere between 1.2 and 1.3, a patch
> >>> exists and could be applied.
> >>>>
> >>> I'll abstain from voting, since we'll not be using 1.3 in production. Does
> >>> anyone else want to treat this as a blocker? Before we can consider this
> for
> >>> 1.3, someone with commit rights needs to commit this to trunk.
> >>>
> >>>> 6/ I have a feeling Gonzalo fixed EVALSYS-854 but it still shows as being
> >>> unresolved.
> >>>>
> >>> I've just assigned this to Gonzalo -- he has not fixed it. This risks the
> slippery
> >>> slope of "one more bug fix" -- I'd say this fix could wait for 1.3.1 or 1.4.
> >>>
> >>>> adam
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: evaluation-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org
> [mailto:evaluation-
> >>>>> bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Beth Kirschner
> >>>>> Sent: 05 July 2011 20:50
> >>>>> To: evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Contrib: Evaluation System] Adam's Jira's & v1.3 RC04 tag
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I haven't heard any reason _not_ to go forward and release the RC04
> tag
> >>> as
> >>>>> the official v1.3 release -- it sounds like there's been some good
> testing as
> >>>>> well as good updates to the existing test plan. We've gone ahead and
> re-
> >>>>> tested the latest tag as we had discussed at the last Sakai conference
> and
> >>>>> haven't found any "blockers", or new issues for further discussion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I vote for tagging this release candidate as v1.3, making an
> announcement
> >>> to
> >>>>> the general Sakai community, and moving on with the business of the
> v1.4
> >>>>> release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>> - Beth
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 5, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Crouch, Catherine wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I successfully completed the tests from the Evaluations Test Plan and
> am
> >>>>> ready to move forward with this release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I made several updates to the Test Plan and feel that it's in pretty
> good
> >>>>> shape as we move towards v1.4 release.  There are a few tests that
> >>>>> reference email notifications, which I did not test for this release but
> will
> >>> for
> >>>>> 1.4.  The tests for using the Heirarchy Template features did not
> perform
> >>> as
> >>>>> outlined in the test plan.  I found that if you're going to use that
> feature
> >>> then
> >>>>> the assignments should be defined in the template and not in the
> >>> evaluation.
> >>>>> I also noticed that there is not an option to SAVE and evaluation
> without
> >>>>> submitting it.  However, I was able to open it, change answers,
> complete
> >>>>> unanswered questions and submit again.  I'm assuming that the Save
> >>> option
> >>>>> is specific for UM.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Cathy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Beth Kirschner wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The issues below that don't appear to be on QA5 may be due to
> some
> >>>>> confusion on process -- when in doubt, take a look at
> >>>>>
> https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/MGT/Sakai+Jira+Guidelines
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If a patch has been applied to "trunk" (which should be the first
> place
> >>> to
> >>>>> commit a change), then the status should be changed to "Resolved".
> >>> When
> >>>>> any change is committed, please be sure to include an svn commit
> >>> message
> >>>>> that includes the JIRA number (e.g. svn commit -m "EVALSYS-1089"),
> >>>>> otherwise, there is no record in JIRA that ties the svn commit to the
> JIRA.
> >>> If
> >>>>> you forget, you should add the revision number as a comment to the
> JIRA
> >>>>> (but best not to forget).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since all the issues listed as open, I'm not surprised that they don't
> >>> appear
> >>>>> fixed. Some of the issues have a comment "patch applied", even
> though
> >>>>> there's no subversion history of this (perhaps the committer forgot to
> >>>>> include the JIRA in the svn commit message). If the patch is truly
> applied
> >>> to
> >>>>> trunk, then please resolve the ticket with a comment that affect
> (perhaps
> >>>>> adding the revision number if you can dig it up). It will likely be put
> into
> >>> the
> >>>>> v1.4 release unless considered a blocker by this group.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let's plan on touching base on July 5th to see about cutting a final
> >>> release
> >>>>> (those of us in the US will have Monday off as a holiday).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> - Beth
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Adam Marshall wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I have commented below. In summary
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - EVALSYS-1089 - haven't had time to test yet
> >>>>>>>> - EVALSYS-1117 doesn't seem to have worked, I still see the text
> >>> about
> >>>>> hierarchy despite hierarchy not being enabled
> >>>>>>>> - EVALSYS-1115 updated patch has been uploaded.
> >>>>>>>> - EVALSYS-1084 [security] an updated patch has been attached
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's also another bug that I've reported:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - EVALSYS-1125 I think this is an EN GB specific bug
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I have left (slightly) more detailed comments below
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Adam
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Here is the status of the JIRA's assigned to me at last week
> >>>>> conference..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> EVALSYS-1079 - resolved
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> AM: confirmed as fix
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> EVALSYS-1081 - resolved
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> AM: confirmed
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> EVALSYS-1089 - patch applied, need testing before being
> resolved.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * AM: haven't had time to do this today. I will test next week
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> EVALSYS-1105 - resolved
> >>>>>>>>> EVALSYS-1113 - see 1114
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> AM: this was created in error and was a duplicate
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> EVALSYS-1114 - commented, confused on the message to be
> >>> displayed
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> AM: Looks like Nicola has sorted this one out. Apologies for
> leaving
> >>> the
> >>>>> word WebLearn in the patch
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> EVALSYS-1115 - commented on date display
> >>>>>>>> AM: updated patch has been uploaded. A comment has been left.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> EVALSYS-1116 - patch applied, need testing before being
> resolved.
> >>>>>>>> AM: confirmed as fixed
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> EVALSYS-1117 - patch applied, need testing before being
> resolved,
> >>> see
> >>>>> comments
> >>>>>>>> AM: not fixed unwanted text is still visible
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> evaluation mailing list
> >>>>>>>> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
> >>>>>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-
> >>>>> unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> evaluation mailing list
> >>>>>>> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
> >>>>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-
> >>>>> unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> evaluation mailing list
> >>>>> evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
> >>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-
> >>>>> unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > evaluation mailing list
> > evaluation at collab.sakaiproject.org
> > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/evaluation
> >
> > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to evaluation-
> unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile