Difference between revisions of "Bugs & Features"
From Data Quality Toolkit
JanaHoffmann (talk | contribs) |
PeerSchwirtz (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
</nowiki> | </nowiki> | ||
||Peer Schwirtz BGBM||@unknown||open|| || | ||Peer Schwirtz BGBM||@unknown||open|| || | ||
| + | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 42: | Line 43: | ||
{| {{table}} | {| {{table}} | ||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''#Feature No.''' | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''#Feature No.''' | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Name''' | ||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Description''' | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Description''' | ||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''@Reporting date''' | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''@Reporting date''' | ||
| Line 47: | Line 49: | ||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Comments''' | | align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Comments''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | |# || |||||||| | + | |#1||Summary Report ||Produce summarized export of test results (human readable), e.g. tested items: 100; bug No. 1: 50 of 100 items wrong format, bug No. 2: 20 of 100 items scientific name not recognized, etc. ||15 Nov 12||suggested feature||This would allow providers/ coordinators to assess the data quality of a provider in a better way.|| |
| + | |- | ||
| + | |#2||Mineralogy||Quality check of mineralogical datasources should also be possible. Example: Prague (NM) ||15 Nov 12||suggested feature|||| | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |#3||List of problematic IDs|| It would be good to get a list of IDs for which problems in the quality check were discovered. Maybe this could be listed by rule and included in feature #1. ||15 Nov 12||suggested feature|||| | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |#4||Filter by range of IDs|| Search by ranges of IDs, e.g. 1-10 not only 1;2;3;... ||15 Nov 12||suggested feature|||| | ||
|- | |- | ||
| + | |#5||Checking large datasets|| make the check of datasources with a big amount of records available || 15 Nov 12|| ongoing|||| | ||
| + | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:19, 19 November 2012
Bugs
Please, report any bugs encountered during testing. Describe the bug so that also provider can understand the problem.
| #Issue No. | Name | Description | Assigned to | @Reporting date | Status | Comments | |
| #1 | Server Timeout? | <!--<Annotations> <Annotation> <Context>OpenUP</Context> <ISODateTime>2012-11-15T10:29:09.180Z</ISODateTime> <MethodOrAgent>ODIS V0.1</MethodOrAgent> <Type>Warning</Type> <Message>Access denied to media object.</Message> <Suggestion></Suggestion> </Annotation> </Annotations> | Peer Schwirtz BGBM | @unknown | open |
Features
Please report any features, which should be implemented. Features are defined as real improvement/ new functionalities of the current tool.
| #Feature No. | Name | Description | @Reporting date | Status | Comments | |
| #1 | Summary Report | Produce summarized export of test results (human readable), e.g. tested items: 100; bug No. 1: 50 of 100 items wrong format, bug No. 2: 20 of 100 items scientific name not recognized, etc. | 15 Nov 12 | suggested feature | This would allow providers/ coordinators to assess the data quality of a provider in a better way. | |
| #2 | Mineralogy | Quality check of mineralogical datasources should also be possible. Example: Prague (NM) | 15 Nov 12 | suggested feature | ||
| #3 | List of problematic IDs | It would be good to get a list of IDs for which problems in the quality check were discovered. Maybe this could be listed by rule and included in feature #1. | 15 Nov 12 | suggested feature | ||
| #4 | Filter by range of IDs | Search by ranges of IDs, e.g. 1-10 not only 1;2;3;... | 15 Nov 12 | suggested feature | ||
| #5 | Checking large datasets | make the check of datasources with a big amount of records available | 15 Nov 12 | ongoing |
