Differences between revisions 41 and 42
⇤ ← Revision 41 as of 2010-02-09 12:42:45 →
Size: 9804
Editor: ColinRosenthal
Comment:
← Revision 42 as of 2010-02-09 13:13:21 → ⇥
Size: 9816
Editor: HenrikKirk
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 23: Line 23:
|| [http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-139 NS-139] || Updated netarkivet.css so it is consistent in its style. || HBK || SVC || || IssuesFromNs139 || HBK || - || - || - || || [http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-139 NS-139] || Updated netarkivet.css so it is consistent in its style. || HBK || SVC || 2010/02/08 || IssuesFromNs139 || HBK || OK || - || - ||

Reviews in Iteration 41BR Use IterationReviewsOverviewTemplate template to start new review pages.

Contains: [#CodeReViewTplCrTable Code Review Table], [#CodeReViewTplOrTable Document Review Table], [#CodeReViewTplCrColumns Code Review Column Description], [#CodeReViewTplOrColumns Document Review Column Description]

Anchor(CodeReViewTplCrTable) Code ReviewsBR Description of columns can be found in section [#CodeReViewTplCrColumns Explanation of the columns in Code Review table]. BR For details on how to do a code review, see [:Process/Code Review:Code Review Process]. BR Code Reviews are done in the review-tool Crucible: [http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/ Link to Crucible], export is done via [http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/plugins/servlet/export Crucible export function] BR Template for insertion of a new line in edit mode: BR || [http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-XX NS-XX] || Bug/FR XXX || INIT || INIT || YYYY/MM/DD || IssuesFromNsXX || INIT || - || - || - ||

Review Id BR NS-XX

Task BR Bug/FR XXX

Author(s)BR INIT

Reviewer(s) BR INIT

Review date BR YYYY/MM/DD

Issues found BR IssuesFromNsXX

Follow-up BR INIT

Done BR -, OK, OK-wp

Releasetest BR excl. or incl. TEST case.item and status

Manuals BR Manual page(s)/chapter(s)

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-131 NS-131]

FR 1846

JOLF

HBK

2010/01/15

IssuesFromNs131

JOLF

OK

Try adding a bitpreservation databasedir to the admin machine.

Installation Manual section 3.2.1 and 4.2.1.

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-132 NS-132]

Bug 1844

HBK

SVC

2010/01/21

IssuesFromNs132

HBK

OK

No test needed

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-133 NS-133]

Bug 1845

HBK

SVC

2010/01/21

IssuesFromNs133

HBK

OK

No test needed

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-134 NS-134]

Bug 1834

JOLF

HBK

2010/01/15

IssuesFromNs134

JOLF

OK

Change the checksum file and correct them without restart.

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-135 NS-135]

Bug 1836

JOLF

HBK

2010/01/15

IssuesFromNs135

JOLF

OK

N/A

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-136 NS-136]

FR 1790

HBK

JOLF

2010/01/26

IssuesFromNs136

HBK

OK

Confirmed by running RunNetarchiveSuite.sh without parameters.

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-137 NS-137]

Bug 1832

JOLF

CSR

2010/01/22

IssuesFromNs137

N/A

OK

Test by running setup with a checksum replica. Perform a harvest an check that the upload time to the checksum replica is less than 1 min.

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-138 NS-138]

Bug 1727 and 1764

JOLF

SVC

2010/02/04

IssuesFromNs138

JOLF

OK

Release test 11 + run a batchjob from a jar file, which does not contain the batchjob method.

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-140 NS-140]

FR 1861

HBK

JOLF

2010/01/26

IssuesFromNs140

HBK

OK

Should be confirmed in GUI

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-141 NS-141]

--

HBK

SVC

2010/01/21

IssuesFromNs141

HBK

OK

No test needed

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-142 NS-142]

FR 1578

HBK

CSR

YYYY/MM/DD

IssuesFromNs142

CSR

OK

Introduced settings instead of constant

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-143 NS-143]

FR 1116

CSR

SVC

YYYY/MM/DD

IssuesFromNs143

CSR

OK

Required

User Manual Section 6

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-144 NS-144]

FR 1580

HBK

CSR

YYYY/MM/DD

IssuesFromNs144

HBK

OK

Start standalone app with -v or --version

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-145 NS-145]

FR 1823 and Assignment B.2.2b

JOLF

SVC

2010/02/08

IssuesFromNs145

JOLF

OK

Try sending a GetAllFilenamesMessage, a GetAllChecksumsMessage and a GetChecksumMessage to the bamon (default through the bitpreservation page). In the log of the bamon it should say "replying to converted batchjob".

Perhaps System Design?

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/MG-8 MG-8]

Task 52 IT 41

HBK

SVC

2010/01/26

IssuesFromMg8

HBK

OK

None

-

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-146 NS-146]

Miscellaneous refactoring

SVC

JOLF

2010/02/08

IssuesFromNs146

SVC

OK

Change releasetest to use new package name for HarvestTemplateApplication

Additional tools

[http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-139 NS-139]

Updated netarkivet.css so it is consistent in its style.

HBK

SVC

2010/02/08

IssuesFromNs139

HBK

OK

-

-

Anchor(CodeReViewTplOrTable) Document ReviewsBR Description of columns can be found in section [#CodeReViewTplOrColumns Explanation of the columns in Document Review table].BR For details on how to other reviews, see [:Process/Document Review:Document Review Process].BR Template for insertion of a new line in edit mode:BR || [:DocumentReview/DocNameIdReview:DocName] ||  Version || Lines || Bug/FR XXX || INIT || INIT || YYYY/MM/DD || INIT || - ||

Document BR [:link:docName]

Version BR X.Y/date

Lines/parts BR All/x-y

Task BR Bug/FR XXX

Author(s)BR INIT

Reviewer(s) BR INIT

Review date BR YYYY/MM/DD

Follow-up BR INIT

Done BR -, OK, OK-wp

[:DocumentReview/DocNameIdReview:DocName]

Version

Lines

Bug/FR XXX

INIT

INIT

YYYY/MM/DD

INIT

-

Anchor(CodeReViewTplCrColumns) Explanation of the columns in Code Review table:

  • "Review Id": The Crucible Review Id which the review is created under in Crucible. Normally name is on form NS-XX, i.e. text to be inserted is [http://kb-prod-udv-001.kb.dk:8060/cru/NS-XX NS-XX]

  • "Task": The assignment or tracker issue that the code has been updated for, e.g. Bug 1512.
  • "Author(s)": The person(s) who have made changes or additions to the code. Only Initials are given, e.g. ELZI.
  • "Reviewer(s)": The person(s) who have not been involved in coding these changes, who will participate in the review.
  • "Review date": Date for review.
  • "Issues found": Link to wiki page with issues found under review (and mandays of work). Normally on form IssuesFromNsXX.
  • "Follow-up": The person who will do the follow-up on the review specified under 'Issues found'.

  • "Done": whether the review follow-up has been done. Has value "-" if new, "OK" if all follow-ups are done, "OK-wp" (with postpones) if follow-ups are done with exceptions that have been postponed.

  • "Release Test": Whether the changes are to be included in the Release test. Has values "-" if new, "incl." if it is to be included in the release test and "excl." if it cannot be included in the release test (e.g. if not testable).

  • "Manuals": The manuals that has to be/is updated as a concequence of the change. Has values "-" if new, "Quick" for [:Quick Start Manual devel:Quick Start Manual], "Deploy" for [:Deploy Manual devel:Deploy Manual], "Conf." for [:Configuration Manual devel:Configuration Manual], "Inst.." for [:Installation Manual devel:Installation Manual], "Dev." for [:Developer Manual devel:Developer Manual], "User" for [:User Manual devel:User Manual].

Anchor(CodeReViewTplOrColumns) Explanation of the columns in Document Review table:

  • "Document": Link to issue review page for document named with identification of the document, e.g. http://netarchive.dk/suite/AssignmentDeploy1 - See example in [Iteration 36].

  • "Version": The SVN, CVS or date for revision of document/script to be reviewed.
  • "Parts/lines": Specifies the parts of the document/script to review (if less that the whole file).
  • "Task": The assignment or tracker issue that the code has been updated for, e.g. Bug 1512.
  • "Author(s)": The person(s) who have made changes or additions to the code. Only Initials are given, e.g. ELZI.
  • "Reviewer(s)": The person(s) who have not been involved in coding these changes, who will participate in the review.
  • "Review date": Date for review.
  • "Follow-up": The person who will do the follow-up on the review specified under 'Issues found'.

  • "Done": whether the review follow-up has been done. Has value "-" if new, "OK" if all follow-ups are done, "OK-wp" (with postpones) if follow-ups are done with exceptions that have been postponed.

Iteration41ReviewsOverview (last edited 2010-08-16 10:25:17 by localhost)