[09:19:21 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> what is supposed to happen when you click the coaching history link?
[09:20:46 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> I got nothing
[09:38:44 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> don't know much about that, where is the link I can try to look it up?
[09:40:25 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> Hard to describe. it's above the tools area. you can see the name of the coach and then next to it is a link for coaching history. I believe it should show a summary report of all coaching interactions. Not working in my unicon demo enivronment or in our continuous build environment. Might just need to log a bug
[09:45:26 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> looks like for me a PDF is suppose to download
[09:46:23 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> what browser are you using? did you check to see if a file downloaded?
[09:47:22 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> using ff
[09:47:24 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> no file downloaded
[09:47:40 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> I'll try another browser
[10:38:08 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> so the coaching history link works when logged in as an admin
[10:38:16 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> does not work when logged in as a coach
[10:38:23 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> probably need to check the defaults there
[10:38:26 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> ssp.unicon.net?
[10:38:31 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> that's right
[10:38:37 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> checking...
[10:38:38 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> or our continuous build enviornment
[10:40:08 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> you're using one of the coach00X accts?
[10:40:52 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> nm.coach001 i see it
[10:46:35 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> Patty_ so the deal is that the coach history link is implemented as a report and it's requiring the report permission
[10:46:57 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> that's probably a bug
[10:47:17 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> but… for the purposes of the demo… i could grant an individual user or group the report permission if that's helpful
[11:06:46 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> Patty_ https://issues.jasig.org/browse/SSP-924
[11:22:16 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> thanks dan
[11:22:22 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> can you grant coach001
[11:22:27 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> this permission in the unicon environment
[11:22:28 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> please
[11:23:46 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> yep
[11:23:59 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> ty
[11:24:05 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> working on it...
[11:26:20 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> try again pls
[11:34:51 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> boom
[11:34:52 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> works now
[11:34:53 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> thanks
[11:36:44 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> that use can now run all reports
[11:36:56 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> no way to split the two features until 924 is addressed
[11:37:11 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> use->user
[11:54:19 CDT(-0500)] <Patty_> thanks dan
[13:34:25 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54>
[13:34:26 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> bet that
[13:34:35 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> bet that's not what patty was hoping for in her demo
[13:36:17 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> where?
[13:36:27 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> saving GPS intake
[13:37:15 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> very awesome
[13:37:31 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> it's very performant. i'll give it that
[13:37:43 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> the error comes back immediately
[13:39:05 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> yay
[13:39:32 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> she's reusing the same student over and over. wonder if there's something lurking in that use case...
[13:40:01 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> do we have a stack?
[13:40:05 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> there is definitely something there. I had that issue but could never figure out how to produce it
[13:40:16 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> pulling the logs
[13:40:39 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> mine had to do with changing an intake field in the app after completing the intake in MyGPS
[13:45:59 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> hard to find anything w/ all these flipping mail delivery errors
[13:46:18 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> that's right. i said 'flipping'. on the internet. in a logged chat.
[13:46:56 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> id grep 'StudentIntakeFormManager'
[13:47:02 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> im sure the exception is coming from there
[13:54:09 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> https://issues.jasig.org/browse/SSP-925
[14:00:51 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> map_template.is_dept. do we need that? don't see a mapping at https://wiki.jasig.org/display/SSP/SSP+v2.0+MAP+Tool-+Save+Template
[14:16:55 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> i have a fix, just running it through its paces locally
[14:22:04 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> ever seen those picture of the webs spiders weave on LSD?
[14:22:18 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> it may or may not have been the act of working on the MAP Templates schema that made me think of that
[15:05:54 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> TonyUnicon it's Phase 3 so you're probably not even looking at it yet, but i changed the external model to include a external_program table. we dont need it for search but will need it for templates, so figured it'd be best to add it right off the bat.
[15:07:02 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> ok
[15:07:08 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> by right off the bad
[15:07:09 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> bat*
[15:07:14 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> you mean phase 1 add it?
[15:07:20 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> sorry no
[15:07:35 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> just 1st time we implement something program-related
[15:08:02 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> I'm not sure what the is_department field does. I'll ask
[15:08:07 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> thx
[15:30:54 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> Dan M- description of is_department- Have the ability to save template and “Mark as created by Specific Dept” (only in case of public template) and they can select the department
[15:30:55 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> This was added so we could have a template type that was for Chairs or Departments, but was not a fully “Public” template. This should let us distinguish between templates created by Individuals, Departments, and Advising
[15:31:19 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> JasonElwood different question can a course have more than one department? division? or it's always 1:1?
[15:32:42 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> for our purposes 1:1
[15:33:50 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> So this MyGPS bug looks like something to do with jquery mobile and I don't know why this is appearing now (I can do it consistently) and we've never seen it before
[15:33:58 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> um… what's the interplay between that boolean field (is_department) and the department pulldown? do we need another checkbox, or is the act of specifying something in the dept pull down effectively saying the same thing as "mark as created by specific dept"
[15:34:36 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> i'm looking at… https://wiki.jasig.org/display/SSP/SSP+v2.0+MAP+Tool-+Save+Template
[15:35:05 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> selecting is defining the department
[15:36:05 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> so we need another checkbox?
[15:36:45 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> TonyUnicon just dont know why we havent seen it before or no bead on a fix?
[15:37:05 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> for what? if they select a department, we stored the id and mark is_department
[15:37:36 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> I don't have a beat on the fix
[15:37:48 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> the null pointer in the stack should not be happening
[15:38:08 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> because, it should not try to populate that form if the intake is completed
[15:38:29 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> the intake html binds a completed value
[15:38:37 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> that doesn't seem to bind now when we render that screen
[15:39:02 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> JasonElwood i thought you were implying a distinction between "defining the department" and "mark as created by specific dept". that would justify a is_dept column. otherwise is_dept == true is the same as department_code == null. so there's no need for is_dept.
[15:39:09 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> gah
[15:39:24 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> is_dept == true is the same as department_code != null
[15:40:26 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> no department selection = no is_department is my interpretation
[15:40:39 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> so there's no need for is_departmentr
[15:40:43 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> goddamn typing.
[15:41:29 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> let me check
[15:41:40 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> ok… so… help me understand the functional impact of picking a dept
[15:41:48 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> i get private vs public
[15:42:07 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> does selecting a dept mean a template is only visible to end users having some sort of affiliation w/ that dept?
[15:42:44 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> Explanation sent to me: This was added so we could have a template type that was for Chairs or Departments, but was not a fully “Public” template. This should let us distinguish between templates created by Individuals, Departments, and Advising.
[15:43:20 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> to what purpose?
[15:43:27 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> show/hide? reporting?
[15:43:54 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> it would be like a semi-public
[15:44:01 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> you're going to copy/paste that sentence back at me again, aren't you
[15:44:32 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> i think we need more info on what semi-public means
[15:44:37 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> I believe they persist department with security like they did in SSP that becomes a part of security. so you could only see certain MAPs
[15:44:52 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> public to only people with the department "security"
[15:46:53 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> so for sinclair your dept affliation impacts your security groups?
[15:47:49 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> That's definitely the way SSP worked. I'm asking about MAP
[15:47:59 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> thx
[15:48:50 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> err ok everything is magically ok now after I did another build
[15:49:06 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> sure, why not
[15:49:07 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> I honestly im starting to hate jquery mobile
[15:49:35 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> starting?
[15:49:35 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> it makes no sense to me, when I was debugging it was binding the view model several times
[15:49:37 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> wtf
[15:49:47 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> well I liked it for its minimalist approach
[15:49:50 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> in terms of code
[15:49:55 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> but the voodoo is just too invasive
[15:51:57 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> I think it great for simple apps that look great and you need to get up fast
[15:53:09 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> im going to test this a little more
[15:56:09 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> TonyUnicon how disruptive would it be if I changed external_course.course_code to external_course.code to match existing the external_term.code convention?
[15:56:55 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> think all the pointers to it would remain "course_code"
[15:57:26 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> I would have to change the tattoo I just got
[15:57:49 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> you're an addict i'm sure. probably welcome it.
[15:58:06 CDT(-0500)] <js70> addicted to blood
[16:01:51 CDT(-0500)] <TonyUnicon> it will be fine
[16:18:28 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> JasonElwood the 'on/off plan' feature...
[16:18:39 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> wireframe suggests that status comes from external data
[16:19:23 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> feel like we talked about this a long time ago, but dont recall any details of how that's supposed to work
[16:21:29 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> that's correct. on or off in the data. and a reason for off
[16:23:31 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> so there is another external table that contains plan statuses per person? external currently knows nothing at all about plans
[16:23:54 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> or on/off plan is purely operational and we need a dialog for advisors to set that data?
[16:24:22 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> nobody can change it. Sinclair calcs it outside of SSP and populates the field in the external data
[16:24:40 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> sorry… what field? how does external know about plans?
[16:24:50 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> it's just person scoped and you hope it matches up with the current plan?
[16:25:10 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> "it" being the person-scoped status
[16:25:50 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> is it like....
[16:26:45 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> backend system X calls the getPlan API for a person and checks that against actual enrollment/transcript, then sets a status in a external table using the plan ID it retrieved from the original getPlan call?
[16:27:06 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> if that's the case i'm not so sure external data is what actually makes sense here
[16:27:13 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> that sounds like setting operational state to me
[16:27:49 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> since "plans" are not in any way "owned by" external systems
[16:29:19 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> my understanding is analyze the plan (not sure how) and update the external field. the off plan field is related to person
[16:30:10 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> ok. so a person either has or doesnt have some sort of planning problem. i can see that being external data. and we just throw a flag up on screen, regardless of what your current plan happens to be.
[16:30:21 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> that more or less the idea?
[16:30:33 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> yep
[16:30:45 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> thx
[16:46:30 CDT(-0500)] <js70> I have a fix for https://issues.jasig.org/browse/SSP-924 and https://issues.jasig.org/browse/SSP-9243. Should I check into 2.0 or 1.2
[16:47:28 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> js70 i think it affects 1.1, 1.2, and 2.0. so all three
[16:48:58 CDT(-0500)] <js70> I think its ok in 1.1, Jason was able to pull the report from that version.
[16:49:00 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> if you changed the url for 923, gunna need to update API docs too
[16:49:08 CDT(-0500)] <js70> k
[16:49:35 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> I wasn't able to as a coach
[16:49:52 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> i'm lookng at the 1.1 code. it's exactly the same
[16:49:53 CDT(-0500)] <js70> yeah, I changed it to the person/ /history/print
[16:49:56 CDT(-0500)] <js70> k
[16:50:42 CDT(-0500)] <js70> so, check into 2.0 and cherry pick to 1.2 and 1.1?
[16:51:10 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> (not saying changing the api was wrong (that's what the ticket called for) just that the docs need updating. historically we've done that with a separate ticket so the API change is super obvious in the automated release changelist from jira)
[16:51:23 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> js70 that's right
[16:52:00 CDT(-0500)] <js70> perfect.
[16:52:00 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> irsc is going to need the patch
[16:52:06 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> so let me know when you're done pls
[16:52:13 CDT(-0500)] <js70> k
[16:52:57 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> if IRSC is getting an update, the Counseling Reference Guide report could go in
[16:53:20 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> Jim- was there a fix you added today for that OR a fix that have gone in since 1.1?
[16:53:38 CDT(-0500)] <js70> fix since 1.1 not sure of the history on that one.
[16:54:39 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> Dan- the issue is that deleted referrals are showing in the report. I can delete the referrals from the db but any other deletions after would still show
[16:56:14 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> JasonElwood which report pls?
[16:56:25 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> Counseling Reference Guide?
[16:56:29 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> yeah
[16:56:39 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> is that already fixed upstream?
[16:56:43 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> is this is a new issue?
[16:57:00 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> Jim indicated that is has been fixed already but not sure when
[16:57:12 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> oh ok. i follow now
[16:57:54 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> js70 i think it makes the most sense for you to figure out what that patch looks like for the CRG report and extract it into something we can backport to 1.1
[17:00:40 CDT(-0500)] <js70> yummy
[17:00:51 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> dont get too excited now
[17:04:41 CDT(-0500)] <js70> Going to suggest we just backport the fix for 924 as 923 involves changes to app.js, PersonController.js and PersonHistoryReportConroller.
[17:04:57 CDT(-0500)] <js70> the api will remain fixed until 2.0
[17:51:18 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> So what was decided about the Counseling Report for IRSC?
[17:53:49 CDT(-0500)] <js70> So, I'm looking into the issue right now.
[18:00:08 CDT(-0500)] <js70> the patching is not going to work as significant changes were made that make a simple patch impossible. Looked at the code, we just need to change one line final PagingWrapper<Challenge> challengeWrapper = challengeService.getAll(null); to final PagingWrapper<Challenge> challengeWrapper = challengeService.getAll(new SortingAndPaging(ObjectStatus.Active));
[18:00:32 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> js70 if that fixes the problem, that seems just fine to me
[18:00:43 CDT(-0500)] <js70> Dan, would it be possible to make this change in the 1.1.1 branch, create a patch and go from there.
[18:00:51 CDT(-0500)] <js70> that will fix it.
[18:01:21 CDT(-0500)] <js70> k
[18:01:23 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> i think i'm probably not understanding what you're saying
[18:01:31 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> here's what i think you're saying
[18:01:55 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> a cherry pick from upstream into 1.1 isn't going to work b/c the upstream patches assume a whole bunch of other changes that aren't relevant
[18:02:07 CDT(-0500)] <js70> yes
[18:02:15 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> but you can accomplish the same goal in a completely different way for 1.1 with a one line patch
[18:02:22 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> if that's what you're saying, then great, go for it!
[18:02:39 CDT(-0500)] <js70> ok. kool.
[18:35:14 CDT(-0500)] <js70> SSP-924 and the CounselingReport are now up to date on 1.1 and 1.2
[18:35:38 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> Thanks Jim
[18:35:46 CDT(-0500)] <js70> NP
[18:44:40 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> dan- would you agree that MAP print/email could occur after feature set 1 and 2?
[18:45:16 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> seems like one of the two should definitely be postponable
[18:45:37 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> as to whether both can be postponed… i think it has to do with what's in the export exactly
[18:46:15 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> and there are two options. one that's full description, the other like a grid of terms and courses
[18:46:30 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> given the concern over the External Data Apocalypse i've been assuming that "exportability" of a minimally viable plan representation is a very high priority indeed
[18:47:16 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> if that's a realistic take on things, then it seems like we absolutely need some sort of lightweight export feature in "phase 1"
[18:47:38 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> i.e. an export that works even if you lose all the external data that a plan refers to
[18:48:14 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> that's why the "Core Planning" feature set operational model specifies that certain fields be copied from the external course record into the operational model
[18:48:43 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> w/r/t the actualy delivery format…. an email is actually going to be simplest for us, i think
[18:48:53 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> given the painfulness of building jasper reports
[18:49:39 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> both report examples have student and contact notes on the reports. the rest is pretty much basic information. do we want to build a report for feature set 1 then go back into the reports to add notes OR do it all at once?
[18:51:13 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> imho notes are fluff and should be added later
[18:51:25 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> and i mean fluff in the most respectful sense
[18:51:26 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> of course
[18:51:32 CDT(-0500)] <JasonElwood> sure
[18:56:57 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> js70 1-1 patch does not compile 4413140cfd42393301cf8cdf72d7c955bff5b5b1
[19:01:48 CDT(-0500)] <dmccallum54> js70 i need to run. will take another peek tonight and see about pushing to IRSC
[19:02:01 CDT(-0500)] <js70> k