[Docutils-checkins] SF.net SVN: docutils:[7378] trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples

[<pau...@us...>]

Revision: 7378
          http://docutils.svn.sourceforge.net/docutils/?rev=7378&view=rev
Author:   paultremblay
Date:     2012-03-05 00:00:42 +0000 (Mon, 05 Mar 2012)
Log Message:
-----------
Another example, with accompanying docs.

Added Paths:
-----------
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/.Rprofile
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/make_x_axis.R
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/options.r
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/problem_solve.R
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/receive_rates_with_adj.R
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/format_numbers.xsl
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/long_tables.xsl
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/make_title_page.xsl
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/makefile
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/report.rst
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/rst_docbook.xsl
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/tables/
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/tables/all.csv
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/tables/hardware_costs.csv
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/tables/other_costs.csv
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/tables/problem_solve_hours_sum.csv
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/tables/sys_costs.csv
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/tables/total_costs.csv
    trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/title_page.xml

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/.Rprofile
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/.Rprofile	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/.Rprofile	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+lwd=3
+font_size = .8
+res = 100
+tick_multiplier = 1
+lwd_grid = .3
+width=5.5
+margins=c(4, 4, .5, 0.5) 
+mgp = c(4, 1, 0)
+legend_font_size = 0.8
+default_grid_color = "lightgray"
+ax_col = default_grid_color
+box_col = default_grid_color
+rec_col = default_grid_color
+bar_label_size = .8
+margins_bar=c(2, 4, .5, 0.5) 
+base_line_type = 2
+months.font = .6
+at = c(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12)
+at = at /12 * 52
+months = c("Jan", "Feb", "Mar", "Apr", "May", "Jun", "Jul", "Aug", "Sep", "Oct", "Nov", "Dec")
+at2 = c(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11)
+at2 = at2 /12 * 52
+at2 = at2 + .5 * 52/12
+months.grid = T
+make.title= F
+bottom.margin = 4
+top.margin=.5
+box.lwd=1
+line_types = c(1,1,1,1,1,1)
+line_colors = c("red","blue", "green", "orange")
+bar_color = c("#330099", "#FF6600")
+base_line_col = "green"
+base_line_col = c(654)
+

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/make_x_axis.R
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/make_x_axis.R	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/make_x_axis.R	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+if(months.grid == T) mtext(side = 1, xlab.text, line=2)
+if(months.grid == T) axis(1, at=at, labels=F, line=4,
+cex.axis=months.font, lab=NULL )  
+if(months.grid == T) axis(1, at=at2, labels=months, line=4,
+cex.axis=months.font, lab=NULL, tick=F,  mgp=c(3,0,0))  

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/options.r
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/options.r	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/options.r	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+library('getopt')
+spec = matrix(c(
+  'draft' , 'd', 0, "logical",
+  'make.title' , 't', 0, "logical",
+  'bw' , 'b', 0, "logical"
+), ncol=4, byrow=T)
+opt = getopt(spec)
+if (length(opt$draft) > 0 && opt$draft == T){
+	res = 100
+	path = 'force_displacment_draft.png'
+}else{
+	res = 500
+	path = 'force_displacment.png'
+}
+if (length(opt$bw) > 0 && opt$bw == T){
+    line_types = c(2,1,3,4,5,6)
+    line_colors = c(rep("black", 10))
+    bar_color = c("black", "lightgray")
+    base_line_col = "black"
+}

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/problem_solve.R
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/problem_solve.R	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/problem_solve.R	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# load("rates")
+library('getopt')
+spec = matrix(c(
+  'draft' , 'd', 0, "logical",
+  'make.title' , 't', 0, "logical",
+  'bw' , 'b', 0, "logical"
+), ncol=4, byrow=T)
+opt = getopt(spec)
+if (length(opt$draft) > 0 && opt$draft == T){
+	res = 100
+	path = 'problem_solve_2010_2011_draft.png'
+}else{
+	res = 500
+	path = 'problem_solve_2010_2011.png'
+}
+if (length(opt$bw) > 0 && opt$bw == T){
+    line_types = c(2,1,3,4,5,6)
+    line_colors = c(rep("black", 10))
+    bar_color = c("black", "lightgray")
+    base_line_col = "black"
+}
+rates <- read.csv("../tables/all.csv")
+title = "Problem Solving,  2010, 2011"
+x <- rates$week
+y1 <- rates$hours.problem.solve.2010 
+y2 <- rates$hours.problem.solve.2011
+total.hours.2010 <- rates$hours.outbound.2010 + rates$hours.inbound.2010
+total.hours.2011 <- rates$hours.outbound.2011 + rates$hours.inbound.2011
+y1 <- y1/total.hours.2010
+y2 <- y2/total.hours.2011
+y1 <- y1 * 100
+y2 <- y2 * 100
+png(file=path,
+width=5, height=3.5, units="in", res=res)
+xlab.text="Week in Year"
+xlab = xlab.text
+ylab = "percentage to total"
+if (make.title == T ) top.margin = 3
+if (make.title != T ) title="" 
+if (months.grid == T) bottom.margin = 6
+if (months.grid == T) xlab = ''
+margins=c(bottom.margin, 4, top.margin, 0.5) 
+par(mar=margins) 
+par(mar=margins) 
+par('family'='serif')
+y_range = range(y1,y2, na.rm=T)
+plot(x, type='n', xlab=xlab, ylab=ylab, las=1, main=title, 
+        ylim=c(y_range), axes=F, xlim=c(range(x)))
+axis(1, col=ax_col)
+axis(2, col=ax_col, las=1, at=axTicks(2))
+box(col=box_col)
+abline( h=axTicks(2), lty=1, lwd=lwd_grid, col=ax_col)
+
+lines(x,y1,  col=line_colors[1], type="l", lwd=lwd, lty=line_types[1])
+lines(x,y2,  col=line_colors[2], type="l", lwd=lwd, lty=line_types[2])
+arrows(x0=30, x1=36, y0=5, y1=5, length=.1)
+text(x=30, y=5, pos=2, "cutover")
+source("make_x_axis.R")
+legend("topleft", c("2010","2011"), cex=legend_font_size, 
+ col=line_colors,  lty=line_types,  bty='y', bg="white", box.lwd=box.lwd)
+dev.off()

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/receive_rates_with_adj.R
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/receive_rates_with_adj.R	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/charts/receive_rates_with_adj.R	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+library('getopt')
+spec = matrix(c(
+  'draft' , 'd', 0, "logical",
+  'make.title' , 't', 0, "logical",
+  'bw' , 'b', 0, "logical"
+), ncol=4, byrow=T)
+opt = getopt(spec)
+if (length(opt$draft) > 0 && opt$draft == T){
+	res = 100
+	path = 'receive_rate_adjusted_draft.png'
+}else{
+	res = 500
+	path = 'receive_rate_adjusted.png'
+}
+if (length(opt$bw) > 0 && opt$bw == T){
+    line_types = c(2,1,3,4,5,6)
+    line_colors = c(rep("black", 10))
+    bar_color = c("black", "lightgray")
+    base_line_col = "black"
+}
+rates <- read.csv("../tables/all.csv")
+x = rates$week
+direct.hours <- rates$direct.hours.receive.2011
+real.hours <- rates$hours.receive.2011
+start <- 38
+late <- direct.hours[start:52]
+title='Rate Receive Adjust'
+adj1 <- .455 # from earlier this year
+adj2 <- .365 # from last year
+indirect.late.adj1 <- late * adj1
+indirect.late.adj2 <- late * adj2
+late.adj1 <- indirect.late.adj1 + late
+late.adj2 <- indirect.late.adj2 + late
+adj1.line <- c(real.hours[1:(start - 1)], late.adj1) 
+adj2.line <- c(real.hours[1:(start - 1)], late.adj2) 
+y1 <- real.hours
+y2 <- adj1.line
+y3 <- adj2.line
+png(file=path, width=width,
+height=3.5, units="in", res=res)
+y_range <- range(y1, y2,y3, na.rm=T)
+xlab.text="week in year"
+xlab = xlab.text
+ylab = "units/man hour"
+if (make.title == T ) top.margin = 3
+if (make.title != T ) title="" 
+if (months.grid == T) bottom.margin = 6
+if (months.grid == T) xlab = ''
+units <- rates$units.receive.2011
+y1 <- units/y1
+y2 <- units/y2
+y3 <- units/y3
+y_range <- range(y1,y2,y3)
+margins=c(bottom.margin, 4, top.margin, 0.5) 
+par(mar=margins) 
+par('family'='serif')
+plot(x, type='n', xlab=xlab, ylab=ylab, las=1, main=title, ylim=c(y_range), axes=F)
+axis(1, col=ax_col)
+axis(2, col=ax_col, las=1, at=axTicks(2))
+box(col=box_col)
+abline( h=axTicks(2), lty=1, lwd=lwd_grid, col=ax_col)
+lines(x,y3, type="l", col=line_colors[1], lwd=lwd, lty=line_types[1])
+#lines(x,y2, type="l", col=line_colors[2], lwd=lwd, lty=line_types[2])
+lines(x,y1,  col=line_colors[2], type="l", lwd=lwd, lty=line_types[2])
+x.poly = c(x, rev(x))
+y.poly = c(y1, rev(y3))
+polygon(x.poly, y.poly, col="lightgray", border=NA)
+arrows(x0=10, x1=7, y0=150, y1=150, length=.1)
+text(x=10, y=150,pos=4, "migration")
+arrows(x0=30, x1=35, y0=80, y1=80, length=.1)
+text(x=30, y=80,pos=2, "cutover")
+legend("bottomleft", c("real","adjusted"), cex=legend_font_size, 
+ col=line_colors,  lty=line_types, bty='y', bg="white", box.lwd=box.lwd)
+source("make_x_axis.R")
+dev.off()

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/format_numbers.xsl
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/format_numbers.xsl	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/format_numbers.xsl	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+<xsl:stylesheet 
+    xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
+    version="1.1">
+
+    <xsl:template match="@*|node()">
+        <xsl:copy> 
+            <xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()"/>
+        </xsl:copy>
+    </xsl:template>
+
+
+    <xsl:template match="comment()">
+        <xsl:comment>
+            <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+        </xsl:comment>
+    </xsl:template>
+
+    <xsl:template match="entry/paragraph">
+        <paragraph >
+            <xsl:call-template name="format-cell"/>
+        </paragraph>
+    </xsl:template>
+
+    <xsl:template name="format-cell">
+        <xsl:variable name="cell-num">
+            <xsl:for-each select="..">
+                <xsl:number/>
+            </xsl:for-each>
+        </xsl:variable>
+        <xsl:variable name="row-num">
+            <xsl:for-each select="../..">
+                <xsl:number/>
+            </xsl:for-each>
+        </xsl:variable>
+        <xsl:variable name="class">
+            <xsl:value-of select="ancestor::table/@classes"/>
+        </xsl:variable>
+        <xsl:choose >
+            <xsl:when test="$class = 'long-metrics'">
+                <xsl:choose >
+                    <xsl:when test="$cell-num=3 and ancestor::tbody">
+                        <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,###')"/> 
+                    </xsl:when>
+                    <xsl:when test="$cell-num=4 and ancestor::tbody">
+                        <xsl:value-of select="format-number(round(.), '###,###')"/> 
+                    </xsl:when>
+                    <xsl:when test="$cell-num=5 and ancestor::tbody">
+                        <xsl:variable name="cell3">
+                            <xsl:for-each select="..">
+                                <xsl:value-of select="preceding-sibling::entry[2]"/>
+                            </xsl:for-each>
+                        </xsl:variable>
+                        <xsl:variable name="cell4">
+                            <xsl:for-each select="..">
+                                <xsl:value-of select="round(preceding-sibling::entry[1])"/>
+                            </xsl:for-each>
+                        </xsl:variable>
+                        <xsl:variable name="rate">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="$cell3 div $cell4"/>
+                        </xsl:variable>
+                        <xsl:value-of select="format-number($rate, '###,###.00')"/> 
+                    </xsl:when>
+                    <xsl:when test="$cell-num=6 and ancestor::tbody">
+                        <xsl:value-of select="format-number(round(.), '###,###')"/> 
+                    </xsl:when>
+                    <xsl:when test="$cell-num=7 and ancestor::tbody">
+                        <xsl:variable name="cell6">
+                            <xsl:for-each select="..">
+                                <xsl:value-of select="round(preceding-sibling::entry[1])"/>
+                            </xsl:for-each>
+                        </xsl:variable>
+                        <xsl:variable name="cell4">
+                            <xsl:for-each select="..">
+                                <xsl:value-of select="round(preceding-sibling::entry[3])"/>
+                            </xsl:for-each>
+                        </xsl:variable>
+                        <xsl:value-of select="$cell4 - $cell6"/> 
+                    </xsl:when>
+                    <xsl:otherwise >
+                        <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+                    </xsl:otherwise>
+                </xsl:choose>
+                </xsl:when>
+                <xsl:when test="$class = 'projected-costs'">
+                    <xsl:choose >
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num=2 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,###.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num=3 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,###.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num=4 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:text >$</xsl:text>
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,##0.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num=5 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:text >$</xsl:text>
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,##0.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:otherwise >
+                            <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+                        </xsl:otherwise>
+                    </xsl:choose>
+                </xsl:when>
+                <xsl:when test="$class = 'projected-exceptions'">
+                    <xsl:choose >
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num=2 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,###')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num=3 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,###')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:otherwise >
+                            <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+                        </xsl:otherwise>
+                    </xsl:choose>
+                </xsl:when>
+                <xsl:when test="$class = 'projected-summary'">
+                    <xsl:choose >
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num=2 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(.,
+                                '$###,###.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num=3 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(.,
+                                '$###,###.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num=4 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(.,
+                                '$###,###.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:otherwise >
+                            <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+                        </xsl:otherwise>
+                    </xsl:choose>
+                </xsl:when>
+                <xsl:when test="$class = 'receive-hours'">
+                    <xsl:choose >
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num != 1 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(.,
+                                '###,###.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:otherwise >
+                            <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+                        </xsl:otherwise>
+                    </xsl:choose>
+                </xsl:when>
+                <xsl:when test="$class = 'cutover-costs'">
+                    <xsl:choose >
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num != 1 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,###')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:otherwise >
+                            <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+                        </xsl:otherwise>
+                    </xsl:choose>
+                </xsl:when>
+                <xsl:when test="$class = 'overall-costs'">
+                    <xsl:choose >
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num != 1 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:text >$</xsl:text>
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,###.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:otherwise >
+                            <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+                        </xsl:otherwise>
+                    </xsl:choose>
+                </xsl:when>
+                <xsl:when test="$class = 'hardware-costs'">
+                    <xsl:choose >
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num != 1 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:text >$</xsl:text>
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,###.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:otherwise >
+                            <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+                        </xsl:otherwise>
+                    </xsl:choose>
+                </xsl:when>
+                <xsl:when test="$class = 'problem-solving'">
+                    <xsl:choose >
+                        <xsl:when test="$cell-num &gt; 2 and ancestor::tbody">
+                            <xsl:value-of select="format-number(., '###,###.00')"/> 
+                        </xsl:when>
+                        <xsl:otherwise >
+                            <xsl:value-of select="."/>
+                        </xsl:otherwise>
+                    </xsl:choose>
+                </xsl:when>
+            <xsl:otherwise >
+                <xsl:message >
+                    <xsl:text >No match for "</xsl:text>
+                    <xsl:value-of select="$class"/>
+                    <xsl:text >"</xsl:text>
+                </xsl:message>
+                <xsl:apply-templates/>
+            </xsl:otherwise>
+        </xsl:choose>
+    </xsl:template>
+    
+</xsl:stylesheet>

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/long_tables.xsl
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/long_tables.xsl	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/long_tables.xsl	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+<xsl:stylesheet 
+    xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
+    xmlns:d="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook"
+    version="1.1">
+
+    <xsl:import
+        href="http://docutils.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/docutils/trunk/sandbox/docbook/xsl/long_table.xsl"/>
+
+    <xsl:template match="table[@classes='problem-solving']">
+        <xsl:processing-instruction name="hard-pagebreak"/>
+        <xsl:call-template name="split-table">
+            <xsl:with-param name="first-page-rows" select="36"/>
+        </xsl:call-template>
+    </xsl:template>
+</xsl:stylesheet>

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/make_title_page.xsl
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/make_title_page.xsl	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/make_title_page.xsl	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+<xsl:stylesheet 
+    xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
+    xmlns:rst="http://www.restructuredtext.org"
+    version="1.1">
+    <!--to make any title pages-->
+    
+    <xsl:import href="http://50.56.245.89/xsl-ns/template/titlepage.xsl"/>
+</xsl:stylesheet>

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/makefile
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/makefile	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/makefile	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+all: title_page.xsl charts/problem_solve_2010_2011.png charts/receive_rate_adjusted.png\
+	report.pdf
+
+draft:title_page.xsl charts/receive_rate_adjusted_draft.png charts/problem_solve_2010_2011_draft.png report_draft\
+	report.pdf
+
+bw: title_page.xsl charts/receive_rate_adjusted_bw.png charts/problem_solve_2010_2011_bw.png\
+	report_bw.pdf
+
+bwdraft: title_page.xsl charts/receive_rate_adjusted_bw_draft.png charts/problem_solve_2010_2011_bw_draft.png\
+	report_draft report_bw.pdf
+
+
+title_page.xsl: title_page.xml
+	xsltproc make_title_page.xsl title_page.xml > title_page.xsl
+
+charts/problem_solve_2010_2011.png: charts/problem_solve.R
+	cd charts; Rscript problem_solve.r
+
+charts/problem_solve_2010_2011_draft.png: charts/problem_solve.R
+	cd charts; Rscript problem_solve.r --draft
+
+charts/problem_solve_2010_2011_bw.png: charts/problem_solve.R
+	cd charts; Rscript problem_solve.r --bw;\
+	cp problem_solve_2010_2011.png  problem_solve_2010_2011_bw.png 
+
+charts/problem_solve_2010_2011_bw_draft.png: charts/problem_solve.R
+	cd charts; Rscript problem_solve.r --bw --draft;\
+	cp problem_solve_2010_2011_draft.png  problem_solve_2010_2011_bw_draft.png 
+
+charts/receive_rate_adjusted.png: charts/problem_solve.R
+	cd charts; Rscript receive_rates_with_adj.R
+
+charts/receive_rate_adjusted_draft.png: charts/problem_solve.R
+	cd charts; Rscript receive_rates_with_adj.R --draft
+
+charts/receive_rate_adjusted_bw.png: charts/problem_solve.R
+	cd charts; Rscript receive_rates_with_adj.R --bw;\
+	cp  receive_rate_adjusted.png receive_rate_adjusted_bw.png 
+
+charts/receive_rate_adjusted_bw_draft.png: charts/problem_solve.R
+	cd charts; Rscript receive_rates_with_adj.R --bw --draft;\
+	cp  receive_rate_adjusted_draft.png receive_rate_adjusted_bw_draft.png 
+
+report.xml: report.rst
+	rst2xml.py --no-doctype --trim-footnote-reference-space report.rst |rstxml2xml.py  > report.xml
+	xsltproc format_numbers.xsl report.xml > tmp
+	cat tmp > report.xml
+	rm tmp
+	xsltproc long_tables.xsl report.xml > tmp
+	cat tmp > report.xml
+	rm tmp
+
+
+report_docbook.xml: report.xml
+	xsltproc rst_docbook.xsl report.xml > report_docbook.xml
+
+report_draft: report.xml
+	xsltproc rst_docbook_draft.xsl report.xml > report_docbook.xml
+
+report_docbook.fo: report_docbook.xml
+	xsltproc docbook_fo.xsl report_docbook.xml > report_docbook.fo
+
+report.pdf: report_docbook.fo
+	fop -fo report_docbook.fo -pdf report.pdf
+
+report_bw.pdf: report_docbook.fo
+	fop -fo report_docbook.fo -pdf report_bw.pdf
+
+clean: 
+	rm -f charts/*png report.xml report_docbook.xml report_docbook.fo report.pdf report_bw.pdf title_page.xsl

Added: trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/report.rst
===================================================================
--- trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/report.rst	                        (rev 0)
+++ trunk/sandbox/docbook/examples/report1/report.rst	2012-03-05 00:00:42 UTC (rev 7378)
@@ -0,0 +1,1042 @@
+.. role:: my-note
+
+****************
+Executive Report
+****************
+
+2nd draft
+*********
+
+:author: Paul Tremblay 
+:organization: Zappos 
+:date: 2011-11-29
+:abstract: 
+
+        As a result of the purchase in 2009 by Amazon, Zappos had to
+        to switch its warehouse management to utilize Amazon’s
+        inventory sharing system. This transition, known as the
+        cutover, began in 2010, but intensive efforts started in June
+        of 2011 and lasted  until September 23 , 2011, the actual date
+        of the conversion. Zappos spent 6.5 million dollars in
+        replacing equipment to work with Amazon's software and in
+        extra labor to handle backlogs created by the change. Zappos
+        underwent an intensive testing process to ensure Amazon's
+        software would function as expected. In order to test that
+        Amazon's software moved products correctly through its
+        warehouse, Zappos Fulfillment Center (ZFC) often closed down
+        its facility early in the morning and worked through the night
+        with its hardware partner, Intelligrated. To test that
+        Amazon's and Zappos’ databases would correctly share and
+        update information, Zappos set up a mock warehouse known as
+        the mini ZFC. The transition did not go smoothly and caused
+        several problems. Zappos went over budget. Because Amazon did
+        not understand the complexity of integrating Zappos unique
+        License Plate Number (LPN) system, it did not develop tools on
+        time. Without these tools, Zappos could not properly train its
+        employees. It could also not conduct the tests as planned,
+        forcing Zappos to switch the transition date from early August
+        into late September, when Zappos received most of its
+        products. The transition resulted in greater warehouse
+        inefficiency and increased costs. ZFC lost flexibility in key
+        areas and some of Amazon’s software does not work optimally
+        with Zappos’ business model. Nonetheless, the conversion was
+        mostly successful. Zappos fulfilled 99 percent of orders
+        placed on the weekend of the massive migration, and continues
+        shipping orders on time.
+
+
+
+============
+Introduction
+============
+
+Zappos Chief Executive Tony Hsieh described the changes as “Open heart
+surgery on a moving train.” With the acquisition by Amazon in 2009,
+Zappos switched its entire warehouse system in order to share
+inventory with Amazon. Though Zappos had a highly effective management
+system which could track hundreds of thousands of items from Nike
+shoes to Cuisinart cookware, it had no way of handling merchandise
+from other vendors. Amazon software would give them this ability,
+granting the shoe retailer a larger marketplace. However, the
+integration presented two major challenges. First, it had to ensure
+that Zappos would retain the ability to process orders in its unique
+way that resulted in incredibly fast shipping, making the company so
+successful. Second, the  switch would have be seamless, with no
+delay in delivery. The major retailer could not disappoint
+customers who had come to rely on Zappos for its legendary service.
+The movement of products could not be disrupted even during the
+surgery of implementing a new system.
+
+
+Zappos’ License Plate Number (LPN) System
+===========================================
+
+Every process in an automated warehouse that tracks or moves an item
+relies on the scan of that item. For other Amazon warehouses, this
+number is the so-called FCSKU code. In contrast, Zappos uses  a
+License Plate Number, or LPN. Since Amazon tools (software interfaces)
+were designed to read and process FCSKU numbers, not LPNs, Amazon had
+to develop  new software for Zappos for many warehouse tasks. The 
+depth and complexity of Amazon tools meant this process would take two
+years. 
+
+LPNs are bar codes unique to each product. Think of two boxes of black
+Nike *Musique IV* shoes, size 10, identical in every aspect, down
+the length of the shoe laces. They get the same UPC code. But Zappos
+assigns them different LPNs, allowing the shoe retailer to track the
+item from the time it comes into the warehouse, to when it is put away
+on a shelf, to when it leaves in a UPS truck headed to a customer in
+Anchorage Alaska 1 month later, and even when a year later, when that
+customer decides to return the item to Zappos Fulfillment Center. 
+
+Using LPNs offers several advantages over UPC codes, especially when problem
+solving. If a box of shoes falls off a cart, A Zappos worker only needs to
+place the item on an available shelf and scan the bar code beneath the shelf.
+Under another warehouse system, a worker would have to check every bin to see
+which misses that pair of shoes. If a pair of shoes comes through receiving
+and there is doubt whether that item has gotten scanned, Zappos only needs to
+scan the LPN on the box. Under another warehouse system, an employee would
+have to do an inventory by counting the number of similar items scanned
+already, then count the same items found already stowed in the warehouse. If
+product does not get stored correctly, Zappos can identify the worker that put
+those items away and coach him. Another warehouse system could not find the
+source of the problem. In ZFC, if an item gets picked (pulled from a shelf),
+the LPN would tell exactly who that item should be shipped to, and what
+priority the item takes, so that if the lines went down, Zappos could still
+direct that box to its right location. Other warehouse systems do not have
+this flexibility. (Since the cutover, Zappos has lost this functionality as
+well.) When an item gets misrouted, the LPN tells a Zappos team member where
+to route the item. Another warehouse must run the item through the lines again
+(as Zappos now does, having lost this functionality, as well). 
+
+The advantages of LPNs also extends to customer service. If three
+different customers return the same pair of Reebok shoes, Zappos knows
+to check that particular product, to determine if the material was
+scuffed or the shoelaces discolored.  Another warehouse system would
+not know to check the box, perhaps thinking the problem lay with the
+brand in general. If a pair of jeans comes back with a wallet in them,
+or a box of shoes with marijuana (both real occurrences!), a simple
+scan at ZFC tells reveals the customer. Under another warehouse
+system, employees might have to do more investigation.
+
+LPNS also offered an easier way to transfer goods between Zappos’
+warehouse and outlet stores. Formerly, moving a box of shoes from ZFC
+to the outlet stores simply involved scanning in the LPN, as did
+shipping large volumes of goods to vendors. Zappos viewed such
+transfers almost the same as moving it within the warehouse.  Having
+lost this functionality, ZFC must now move goods through shipping, as
+if Zappos were a manufacturer and the vendor an outlet store. This
+puts a greater strain on the shipping process. It also hinders Zappos
+ability to plan for peak, since  Zappos builds its warehouse around
+the day it will do the highest volume, and it cannot account for
+unexpected vendor returns or demands.
+
+In addition, the LPN system can better handle items from two different
+warehouses. Zappos, having warehouses located within ½ mile of each
+other, always ships orders of multiple items in the same box, in
+contrast to Amazon, which having warehouses all over the country, will
+ship items from different warehouses. When Zappos needs to pull items
+from different warehouses for the same order, it requires no more than
+a worker scanning the LPN from each warehouse, and letting the system 
+handle all other routing.
+
+Last, using LPNs helps Zappos manage paying tariffs on certain goods.
+As a Foreign Trade Zone entity, ZFC receives certain items directly
+from ships, these items not having to pass through customs. ZFC must
+then pay the tariff as it ships each item. If an item is shipped out
+and the tariff paid, and the item is then returned, Zappos knows not
+to pay the tariff again. Other warehouse systems would pay the tariff
+twice (though these systems would know not to pay the tariff on the
+last pair of shoes to offset paying double on the first). 
+
+Overall, Zappos uses LPNs to provide better customer service. Since the
+retailer  has an extremely low tolerance for delays in shipping items
+to its customers, it demands a short “cycle time” (the amount of time
+required to solve a problem). LPNs allowed Zappos to fulfill this
+goal. However, because ZFC has lost some of the functionality of LPNs,
+it needs more resources to solve problems. Whereas pre cutover,
+Zappos had 2 people for problem solving for outbound, it now has a
+whole team with a lead and a team manager.
+
+
+=======
+Testing
+=======
+
+Zappos naturally desired to conduct intensive tests to ensure that
+when it went live, switching to Amazon's software, the system would
+function as expected. Planning began as early as 2009, with Zappos team
+members flying out to both Las Vegas, Zappos head quarters, and
+Seattle, Amazon's headquarters. These initial meetings determined the
+hardware requirements and also outlined general testing procedures.
+
+On site testing began in June, 2011, and followed along two paths,
+transactional and warehouse. The transactional phase made
+sure Zappos could read and access Amazon's database. Warehouse
+testing involved making sure products moved properly through the
+warehouse.
+
+Transactional Testing
+=====================
+
+Zappos set up what it referred to as the mini ZFC in order to test that
+databases of Amazon and Zappos correctly communicated with each other.
+A brief overview of the data sharing will make other parts of this
+document clearer. 
+
+Zappos and Amazon share information throughout the entire receiving
+and shipping process. The sharing begins when Zappos places a
+purchasing order, or PO, say, for 100 boxes of Nike shoes. The
+information about the PO gets transmitted to the host, Amazon. When
+the cartons arrive at the Zappos ZFC, an employee scans the UPC on the
+side of the boxes. Amazon receives this information directly,
+confirming the arrival of the merchandise. In turn, Amazon sends the
+confirmation back to a database at Zappos, where the finance
+department increases its assets. Similarly, when a box gets shipped
+from the Zappos warehouse, Amazon receives the scan directly,
+decreases its inventory by one, and tells the Zappos database to do the
+same. The same updating occurs for inventory. If a box of shoes falls
+behind the shelf and is hidden from a scan of a member of the Zappos
+auditing team, Amazon gets a flag for a lost item, and communicates
+this back to Zappos; when the box is found two months later, both
+Amazon's and Zappos’ database get updated again.
+
+To be clear, this description explains only part of the database
+sharing. For example, it does not detail how the Zappos Customer
+Loyalty Team (CLT) might need the tracking number for a concerned
+customer. Amazon sends this information to Zappos Site Manager, a
+system distinct from Amazon's, and on its own network. Amazon’s system
+must have special code to interact with Site Manager.  Also, Amazon
+software handles another task besides managing databases—it instructs
+the hardware in ZFC how to route items.  This second task will be
+discussed in the next section. Nonetheless, the central point remains:
+before the cutover, Zappos received information about the arrival and
+shipment of an items directly from the scans in its own warehouse.
+After the cutover, Zappos would get this data from Amazon. The mini FC
+was established to make sure the messaging between Amazon and Zappos
+functioned correctly.
+
+Zappos built its mini fulfillment center in a cage on June 24, 2011.
+Rather than Versace coats and Roberto Cavalli shoes, the mini
+warehouse's inventory consisted of LPN codes printed on cheap 8 ½ by
+11 printing paper. This humble operation was later taken over by the
+indefatigable Dr. Spankelstein, or Jason Hayes, who used the pieces of
+paper as if goods, scanning them to see if Amazon got the message the
+goods represented. At first, Jason tested simple processes, such as
+the receiving and the shipment of merchandise.  Once these tests
+proved successful, Jason tested for more complicated operations, the
+exceptions that arose during course of a real day at ZFC. If Zappos
+ordered 100 cartons of shoes, but 120 arrived, that should trigger an
+overage flag, which tells Zappos to handle that inventory differently.
+If a picker discovers damage to the shoes, those shoes should be
+pulled, not shipped. If a customer cancels an order, Amazon and Zappos
+must know not to ship it. If a customer returns an item, the database
+must indicate whether or not he has gotten his refund. In each case,
+Jason tested to see that Amazon got and sent the right message. For
+example, Jason stood in front of his inventory of papers on a shelf
+and intentionally scanned in the wrong number–representing the actual
+occurrence when inventory did not match the database—and then verified
+that the databases got updated correctly .
+
+Because of problems experienced with the other phase of testing, that
+in the warehouse, transactional testing in the mini ZFC started late.
+It proceeded slowly. Amazon did not develop the tools on time. Because
+of the late start, Zappos did not have enough time to thoroughly test
+several processes. One part of the warehouse consists in handling BIG
+orders, those orders so big that they can not fit in a single box. ZFC
+could only test the messaging to this process twice. Likewise, it only
+ran a few successful tests on gift cards before going live.
+
+______________________
+Problems with Training
+______________________
+
+Amazon's delay in developing tools hurt training for the cutover.
+Effective training for a large facility such as Zappos, which employs
+over 2,000 workers during its off season, needs four to five weeks.
+Effective training also requires that the trainees have hands on
+experience using the tools. Last, effective training mandates
+consistency, in making sure the trainees' knowledge gets reinforced
+first by the uniformity of the training material, and then in having
+the actual of job experience match the training.
+
+Amazon's delay in developing tools prevented Zappos from meeting any
+of these criteria.  Because Zappos did not have physical tools,
+trainees never had to opportunity to practice, to press actual buttons
+or go back one screen on a RF gun. Instead, they learned solely by
+hours of viewing screen shots presented through Power Point
+presentations. Studies show that most people learn effectively by
+doing rather than watching, but workers at Zappos never had this
+opportunity.
+
+Zappos training was further undermined by the screen shots not
+arriving on time. Amazon had made a commitment to deliver these screen
+shots by June 15, 2011. On June 13, 2011, a few days earlier, Zappos
+expressed concern in an internal meeting that it had not received the
+screen shots, but noted that as long as it received them in a few
+days, it would “just allow time for makeup sessions.” On July 11,
+2011, Zappos still had not gotten these screen shots and expressed
+concern at meetings that “training was at risk.” By July 15 of the
+same year, Zappos was forced to delay training implementation.
+Delaying the implementation meant less time to train all employees.
+
+Last, Zappos training was made less effective by the screen shots not
+accurately showing how the tools worked. Because Amazon had not
+developed the tools in time, and made changes to them late in to the
+testing processes, it also changed the tools' interface, rendering the
+screen shots inaccurate.
+
+The inaccuracies between the tools and screens shots were many.
+
+* For the Putaway tools, Amazon made so many updates, none of which showed up
+  on the slides, that Zappos had to take down in the warehouse, and then
+  dispose, 85 job aids (posters outlining how to use this tool).
+
+* For the singles and multis tools, Amazon did not present any
+  information on the light system (Put-To-Light) in its slides. In
+  addition, the slides indicated that 2 scanning tools would be
+  available per lane, when there was only 1; the slides told team
+  members to scan the P-slip when in fact they do not scan it; and the
+  team members were given inaccurate information on how to read the flashing
+  Put-To-Light system.
+
+* For receiving, the slides did not accurately present the web interface and
+  the job aids had be replaced after the cutover.
+
+* For unload, the inaccuracies in the slides forced Zappos to update
+  all of the job aids and power point slides after the cutover.
+
+* For returns, the changes in the slides were communicated so late
+  that there was no time to retrain members who were trained earlier
+  and who got improper instructions.
+
+* OOPS, a trouble shooting tool, presented unique problems. Because so
+  few distribution centers use this tool, no information existed for
+  its use after cutover. The documentation that was available before
+  the cutover indicated buttons and tabs that did not exist, and
+  Zappos had so little confidence in the training materials that it
+  provided no training before the cutover. After the cutover, ZFC
+  re-created slides and job aids.
+
+* For the singulate process, numerous changes occurred after the
+  cutover, forcing Zappos to update its training and power point
+  presentation; for example, the scanners did not correctly
+  “interface”  forcing Zappos to change the training for this process.
+
+* For the Tote Wrangle process, a discrepancy existed between the
+  tote/ID and card ID issues. :my-note:`[not clear here]` So many
+  changes were made to the process flows and modules after the
+  cutover, that none of these flowcharts were valid after the cutover.
+
+* Overall, the updates forced Zappos the change the videos for training on the
+  Multis and Singles processes as well as to the videos for Return videos.
+  Changes occurred so late that members trained earlier did not get the proper
+  training.
+
+Problems with Training for the Manual Drop
+___________________________________________
+
+In addition, Zappos could not get proper training for the manual drop part of
+its system. “Dropping,” or waving, is warehouse jargon for the order of
+processing orders. If Zappos receives ten thousand orders on a busy morning,
+it does not blindly put these orders on the floor to get processed all at
+once. Doing so would cause problems, amongst other things, overloading the
+system and clogging certain stations like multis. Instead, a warehouse
+maximizes its efficiency by judiciously releasing orders to the floor
+gradually.
+
+Sophisticated software handles waving most effectively, deciding what
+to release based on complicated algorithms. Automatic warehouses, such
+as those run by Amazon, use such software (usually SAP). In
+contrast, a manual warehouse uses a worker, who looks at a computer
+screen and releases items based on what he learned in special
+training.
+
+Not surprisingly, automatic waving results in more efficiency. An
+automatic system maximizes the goods available to a warehouse. If a
+warehouse can handle 3,000 singles orders and 1,000 multiple orders,
+the computer assures that exactly that number remains available at any
+time. This results in higher pick rates, because a picker that has a
+large amount of goods to choose from walks less and picks more. An
+automatic drop system means less workers having to man picking
+stations, which means less training time.  Last, an automatic system
+avoids the human mistake of releasing too many goods, overloading the
+lines.
+
+Before the cutover, Zappos used a hybrid warehouse. Computers diverted
+items by reading codes on boxes, but humans manually waved items for
+picking. Zappos had hoped to get an automatic waving system with the
+cutover in order to offset what it perceived as inefficiencies (for
+example, in the returns process). Unfortunately, three weeks before
+the proposed cutover, Amazon announced it could not integrate
+automatic waving after all. The problem  lay with the moving carousel
+in ZFC, and more specifically, the proprietary software of Diamond
+Phoenix that controlled the carousel. Amazon does not use a moving
+carousel in any of its warehouses, so did not have any code to
+interact with it. Though Amazon initially believed it could
+incorporate Diamond Phoenix into its system, the integration turned
+out too complicated. 
+
+Without the automatic waving system, ZFC felt its managers needed special
+training in learning how to wave goods in an Amazon warehouse. ZFC sent
+managers to the Amazon warehouse Lex 1 to get such training. Unfortunately,
+Lex 1 did not seem willing to share its knowledge, having the Zappos trainees
+folding boxes instead of learning the system. Feeling the managers wasted
+their time, ZFC had them return to Shepherdsville after one day. 
+
+Migration
+=========
+
+Another aspect of transactional testing involved moving Zappos
+inventory to the Amazon database. Zappos needed to develop both a
+strategy for transferring the bulk of the six million items, known as
+bulk migration, and a strategy for handling special orders that could
+not be part of the bulk migration.
+
+Since ZFC would have to shut down its warehouse during the bulk
+migration, it needed to ascertain the length of the process, in part
+determined by how many threads Zappos could use. (A thread is the
+smallest unit of processing that can be scheduled by an operating
+system; the more threads that a process has, the faster it will
+complete.) A team in Las Vegas, where the actual migration would take
+place, initially estimated the migration would require 14 hours. It
+tested this claim by a simulation run on June 14, 2011. Zappos
+still needed to know how many threads it could have available for the
+process. However, as late as August 21, 2011, Amazon still could not
+give Zappos an exact answer, stating it would base its decision on a
+test the following Saturday.
+
+While the warehouse was shutdown for bulk migration, Zappos needed to
+fulfill special orders, those requiring overnight shipping, approximately 15%
+of all shipments.  Different strategies  were discussed as early as June
+27, 2011, with Zappos eventually settling on a Just in Time (JIT) strategy,
+in which a special script, created in Las Vegas, would run in the background,
+pulling and separating special orders from bulk migration. On July 29, 2011,
+Zappos was a bit frustrated at having no resolution to this problem. 
+
+Warehouse Testing
+=================
+
+Zappos also conducted intensive testing on the movement of goods though its
+warehouse. A brief overview of how goods move through the warehouse will make
+warehouse testing clearer.
+
+__________________________________
+Overview of Warehouse Processes
+__________________________________
+
+Zappos has 27 Control Panels that make sure the products move to their correct
+destination. The flow of products can be quite complex. It starts when large
+cartons of goods arrive in the back of semi trucks.  A member of the receiving
+team scans the entire box into ZFC's system.  The boxes then move on a
+conveyor belt to a receiving station, where an employee opens the carton,
+places a LPN on each item, and then scans that LPN. From this point forward,
+for the entire history of the product, the LPN will always be associated with
+this particular item, just like a social security number is always associated
+with a particular person. The employee places the items back on a conveyor
+belt. As the items speed along the conveyor belt, they pass under a sorter,
+which determines the pick module location, A, B, or C. For example, boots,
+being large, cannot fit in the moving carousel, so will be routed to the
+static racks. Next, a member of the Putaway team picks up the item, scans it
+into his gun, finds an empty location, and then again scans both the LPN on
+the box and the bar code on the shelf, assigning the box a location so it can
+later be retrieved. From arrival to stowing, a box is scanned and tracked no
+fewer than 4 times.
+
+Shipping a good likewise requires routing. First, a computer sends a
+message to the picker closest to the item indicating its location. The
+picker pulls the box from the shelf, scans it, and places it on a
+conveyor belt. Machine sorters read the LPN from the side of the box and
+divert it to a shipping station, where a member of the shipping team
+scans the LPN, places the product in a larger shipping carton, and
+affixes a label to its side. The system sends the shipping carton to
+the SLAM line. A box can ship by different means, by UPS overnight, by
+UPS ground, or by Fed Ex, to mention a few. The SLAM determines the
+shipping means by using its built-in scanner to read the label on the
+side of the box.  After affixing a label to the top of the box, the
+SLAM routes it to the correct truck. 
+
+For orders that contain more than one item, the routing becomes  more
+sophisticated.  Let's imagine that a customer, Jan Freeman, orders a
+pair of Roberto Cavalli shoes and a Versace coat. Another customer,
+Roger Dawson, orders a Timex watch and a pair of Nike shoes. As with a
+single order, the computer finds the picker closest to the items.
+Imagine it finds that a single picker is near both the Robert Cavalli
+shoes for Jan as well as the Nike shoes for Roger. The picker
+retrieves both boxes, and after scanning each LPN, starts them on a
+conveyor belt.  Instead of diverting these items directly to shipping,
+the sorter sends them to a station called multis, where each item
+is put in a bin to await its mate. Imagine that the bin for
+the dress shoes is at the end of lane 1, while the location for the
+athletic shoes is at the end of lane 8.
+
+Another picker finds the watch and the Versace coat. The watch is too
+small, and the coat too soft, to travel along a conveyor belt, so both
+items are conveyed in a tote. The tote travels to a station called
+singulation, the station that separates and sends items to the correct
+location. A member at the singulation team removes the coat and watch
+from the tote, scans both, and puts each in its own tote. The system
+determines that the coat should be sent to lane 1, and the watch to
+lane 8.
+
+When the coat arrives at the end of lane 1, a member of the
+multis team scans the LPN. A light on the Put-To-Light system
+flashes right below the bin with the Robert Cavalli shoes, directing
+the worker to the right bin. Since all the items have arrived for
+Jan's order, the light flashes red, telling the employee to push the
+items to the back of the bin. On the other side, a member of the
+packing team  packs both items in a shipping box and sends the box to
+the SLAM line. The SLAM station handles the carton exactly as it does
+for a carton for a single item, weighing it, reading the label on the
+side, determining its mean of shipping, affixing a label to the top,
+and sending it to the right truck.
+
+This brief overview handles many types of  orders, though it does not explain
+unusual situations, such as how the system handles overages, when a vendor
+sends too many items. 
+
+Note that unlike other Amazon warehouses, Zappos doe not require that goods
+move in totes, or larger containers that can hold several items. So long as
+the item measures more than six inches, it goes directly onto the conveyor
+belt and gets routed to its destination. Only items moving in totes,
+approximately 30% of all items, require singulation. All other products
+travel directly to shipping or multis.
+
+If the direction of goods gets controlled by a brain, Amazon software,
+the actual movement takes place on equipment provided by
+Intelligrated, a local company that partners with Zappos to provide
+the hardware for the warehouse. A body must learn to communicate with
+a brain. Intelligrated equipment must know how to take commands from
+Amazon software. To this end, Intelligrated became the third party in
+the testing team, joining Zappos and Amazon. Located locally,
+:my-note:`C. doesn’t like this word choice` Intelligrated often sent
+members to the Zappos Fulfillment Center in Shepherdsville.  
+
+Clearly, the movements of goods through the Zappos Fulfillment Center
+requires a sophisticated system, which had functioned  because Zappos
+built it orderly, over time. The scans communicated with equipment
+Zappos had slowly integrated, by means of computer code the company
+had written and modified, as needed. The cutover would change the
+system all at once. Zappos software would not get the messages about
+incoming cartons; Amazon's software would. Zappos software would not
+direct places to store shoes; Amazon's would. Zappos system would not
+determine the closest picker to a pair of shoes; Amazon's system
+would. Amazon's system, FCSW, would have to communicate with ZFC
+hardware and give the right routing directions.
+
+______________________
+Initial Phases
+______________________
+
+Testing for the warehouse took several phases, from creating a plan,
+to testing in a simulated atmosphere, to testing in the real system
+itself, in which items were moved in and out of Amazon's databases. In
+the first phases, Zappos would plan for the tests themselves,
+establishing what needed to be tested, and how those tests took place.
+It set the cutover date for August 22, 2011. It established targets
+and informed managers of these targets. One goal included informing
+Amazon of Zappos’ unique needs.  Another was to determine the bulk
+migration strategy (as outlined in the last section). Other goals
+included:
+
+* Setting up a vendor strategy for returns.
+
+* Developing a roll out strategy. Zappos would use the roll out
+  strategy in case the transition to Amazon's system failed, switching
+  back to the system already in place. Ultimately, ZFC determined it
+  would probably not need the roll out strategy.
+
+* Outlining a strategy for training, preparing OPS (operational
+  management), and planning a schedule for purchasing hardware.
+ 
+
+By July, the testing began in earnest. Instead of closing down its
+warehouse from 4:30 AM to 6:30 AM, the normal time, ZFC closed down as
+early as 12:00 midnight. In the early hours of the morning, committed
+members of the i2 team probed the new system. This involved first
+creating fake products to run through the warehouse, with team members
+stuffing “reboxes,” old boxes ruined in shipping, with rolls of duct
+tape to give them weight so they would not fall off the conveyor
+belts.  To imitate larger totes, which contain such items as baby
+shoes or jewelry, members used the totes used in actual shipping, but
+filled them with papers on which LPNs had been printed. The mechanical
+scanners seemed content enough to read the merchandise as high heels
+and boots. The next phase involved Zappos switching from the Zappos
+network to the Amazon network by means of running a VLAN script. At
+the start, the script took quite a long time to run; towards the end
+of testing, ZFC switched much more quickly between the two networks.
+Once switched, members moved the bogus items through the ZFC, checking
+to see that Amazon got and sent the right messages. Jason Davis from
+Zappos would often have a conference call with Amazon and inform them
+what items Zappos had placed on a conveyor belt. He would see if
+Amazon got the message that an item had been scanned. He would radio
+to Zappos and Intelligrated personal what Amazon told him, and in
+turn, tell Amazon what happened in the warehouse. 
+
+Zappos gradually increased the complexity of its testing. At first
+it tried to get a single item through the warehouse, from picking, to
+a singles station and finally through shipping. When it finally
+achieved this goal some three weeks into testing, on June 20, 2011,
+the team let out a whoop of jubilation. Likewise, it considered it a
+victory when the SLAM line read a SPOO label from the side of the box.
+At the same time, Zappos experienced many problems. It encountered a
+backlog because of closing down the warehouse and internally expressed
+the need to hire more help. Most of the processes did not function
+properly. For example, when testing the SLAM line, it found that
+Amazon assigned the wrong status to each item. Amazon was informed of
+this problem and said it would get back to Zappos. Zappos felt it fell
+behind schedule, in both getting the system working, and in getting
+training material. 
+
+___________________________
+Example of a Testing Night
+___________________________
+
+On July 22, 2011, ZFC conducted all night testing with Amazon and its
+hardware partner Intelligrated. A description of this test will give a
+good example of the procedure and problems the testing team
+encountered. ZFC made several preparation prior to testing. In order
+to assure hardware could communicate with the host Amazon, it set up
+the proper hardware with Cisco switches  It got the Avalanche software
+downloaded to the RF Guns. (RF Guns, like a laptop, need an operating
+system to function.) Unfortunately, Zappos made these preparations in
+vain. Amazon communicated to Zappos that these tests could not go
+forward until four days later, on July 26, because of problems with
+the Amazon system. This meant that Zappos could only test conveyance
+processes, those processes that guided the Zappos warehouse equipment.
+It could not test the databases themselves.
+
+Zappos realized another problem with the RF guns. Amazon required that
+any scanning guns interacting with their system be equipped with WPA
+(Wifi Protected Access) security. Zappos current model, the 9060, did
+not have this ability, forcing the shoe retailer to acquire the 9090
+models. The newer models had the potential of introducing another
+incompatibility, as ZFC feared that they would not interact properly
+with Diamond Phoenix, the software that operated the carousel, or
+moving racks. A group of engineers in Shepherdsville felt a small
+sense of exultation when it got the 9090s to work with the
+Diamond Phoenix system. Later, ZFC had to make another decision
+regarding the guns.  It needed over 250 of the new 9090s to operate
+its warehouse, a purchase that required approximately $450,000 in
+expenditures.  Not wanting to use this much capital, Zappos decided to
+lease the guns instead.
+
+For the night of the actual testing, Friday, July 22, a team
+consisting of nine personnel from Intelligrated was present, as was a
+team consisting of 4 members from Amazon. At 10:00 PM, ZFC turned off
+the scanner and conducted some preliminary testing with Intelligrated.
+At 12:00 AM, ZFC initiated a VLAN script, a small program that
+switched the machines from communicating with Zappos to Amazon's
+software. The script took a full 35 minutes to initiate, and then for
+some unknown reason, did not connect control panels 1 and 2. The
+testing teams placed the totes on the conveyors and checked to see
+that the Amazon software directed them to the right place. At 1:00 AM
+the tests halted because Zappos could not get the correct messages
+from Amazon, and the testing could not resume again until 2:30 AM,
+when it was determined that Amazon had blocked a port through
+firewall.
+
+Zappos resumed the test with singulation. The SICK scanner could not read the
+label correctly, at least initially. When it did read the label correctly,
+Amazon did not properly send a message correctly to ZFC to move the tote
+along.  Intelligrated pointed out that it correctly released the totes after
+nine seconds of no read, exactly according to the Amazon specification.
+Intelligrated noted that it would take some time to resolve this problem.
+
+At 4:00 AM, the testing then moved to rebin, where items that belong together
+are put together in a bin. In testing, the teams discovered that the lights in
+the Put-To-Light system, did not function properly. None-the-less, these tests
+were mostly successful.
+
+Meanwhile, a group of dedicated Intelligrated engineers had been
+working on fixing the lack of communication in the singulation stage.
+At 6:4...
 
[truncated message content]