Re: [Treebase-devel] Some results of testing with a user

[William P. <wil...@ya...>]

On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:

> On Mar 18, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Vladimir Gapeyev wrote:
> 
>> (1) Unexpected different results on the Taxa tab -- a feature or a bug? E.g., find a single study, e.g. 10051. 
>>     -- Click the study (which goes to Citation tab), then to Taxa tab ==> "Nothing to display"
>>     -- Go to Matrices tab; click on "View Taxa" in the table ==> it goes back to the Taxa tab, showing lots of stuff
>>     -- Go back to Citation tab; then Taxa tab  ==> "Nothing found to display" 
>>    -- Go to Trees tab; click on "View Taxa" in the table ==> it goes back to the Taxa tab, showing lots of stuff.
> 
> This is for Bill to judge in terms of what kind of problem it may signal, and hence how severe it is.

This may be severe -- let's at least understand why it is happening. It is affecting a lot of studies.

> 
>> (2) An ominous message when Phylowidget loads: "An applet requires access to your computer.  The digital signature could not be verified."
> 
> The digital signature warning is because it is custom issued rather than by a trusted authority. What I wasn't sure of myself though when this dialog presented itself to me is what the applet wants to do that would require this seemingly unqualified access to the computer. Is this indeed necessary? If yes, we should add a dialog or a message somewhere that explains to the user what the applet will be doing that requires this permission to be granted.  

yup, but not a show-stopper.

>> (3) Havoc from purls.
> 
> I think we've exhausted that discussion at this point. If you do want to subject these offending PURL links to testing, I appreciate that and have therefore created the additional purl.org base URLs - just use those when you deploy to dev and stage.
> 
> Personally I would be willing to go public without this additional testing step, if you run out of time to perform it.

Let's just leave the situation as-is for now. It's mostly us who do beta testing on stage and dev, and we know to edit these links accordingly. 


>> 
>> (4)  We noticed that some many tree and matrix entries had original files missing. It seemed like a big data problem to me initially, but the more I look into it, the less I understand how things are intended to be, so I'll just enumerate the bothersome issues. 
> 
> It sounds too here like this is for Bill to judge in terms of kind of issue and severity it may signal. 

Not a show-stopper, IMO. We can come up with a plant to repopulate the missing files after release. 

>> 
>> If it were up to me, I'd prefer the purls issue resolved before Treebase goes live.
> 
> I don't see any harm with going live with the contentious ones. The only shortcoming from the perspective of release seems to be that it's nearly impossible to fully test them. I've enabled that now (see above), so if time permits we can do it. 

yeah, this is not an artifact that public users of treebase.nescent.org will encounter. Let's let this dog lie, for now. 

bp