Difference between revisions of "Bugs & Features"

Latest revision as of 13:19, 19 November 2012

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

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

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 |-
 |#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||||
+|-
 |}