Morgan  

This is an issue we discussed previously with DevIT for ISLG. You can see the discussion here:
https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/13649-add-new-subject-greater-add-to

For ISLG we agreed based on technical implications that branches will be added to the top of the level. However, this is hopefully acceptable given that branches can be reordered. 

I have added the card for ILG in Target Process here as I'm not sure whether the implementation is the same or not:

ILG: https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/16398-ilg-team-feedback-add-peer-greater

Mel

Hi Melissa ,

I'm not sure what happened on the implementation, but the behaviour for adding peer and child branches should match the behaviour in the existing ISLG application. This is what I requested in my comment here:

image.png 50.9 KB • Download

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Melissa ,

We didn't have a chance to discuss this this morning, but if further clarification is needed, please let me know, and we can have a quick call to discuss.

Thanks,

Morgan

Morgan

If you notice the last comment in thread from Harsh:

"As discussed on Monday call (10/02/2020), Due to technical reason, all added new branch will display at top."

I'll need Harsh to comment on the significance of the issue. 

Mel

Morgan  

Circling back to this. Based on my discussions with the dev teams for both ISLG and ILG it is not possible to implement both ordering/reordering functions. 

In ISLG, since we have drag and drop reordering we cannot also implement specific ordering when adding a peer branch because the logic will conflict. Therefor, new branches will always be added to the top of the relevant level.  

In ILG, since we will be implementing specific ordering when moving or adding a branch (peer above, peer below, child), drag and drop reordering will not be possible. 

I don't fully understand the technical implications but I have been assured that it must be either one or the other. 

Mel

OK. Thanks Melissa .

For ISLG, this is a pretty significant limitation . It's going to get very messy in the Subject Navigator if we can't insert new branches within specific locations, particularly when we add all new entries to the bottom of the level within the existing application.

Harsh , is there a way to at least have every new branch added to the bottom of the level, rather than the top? At least this would avoid the problem or reordering every single new entry added to tree.

For ILG, does this mean we could easily switch to the ISLG reordering system or would that be a significant job?

Thanks,

Morgan

Morgan  for ILG, Jitesh indicated that it would be significant to implement the reorder function (approximately 2 weeks) and so when you and I discussed it previously we decided to instead implement the more precise add/move function.  

OK Melissa . Thanks. We'll keep the current requirements within ILG then (with the modifications requested in the user stories here: Re: Problem with moving topics within tag directory - TOLOGIX - Infrastructure LawGuide (ILG).

However, we need to address the outstanding issues with ISLG. I'm going to add this to agenda for Thursday's call, but Harsh , following up on my question above would it be possible to implement a change that would allow new branches to be added to the bottom of the level, rather than the top? We can probably live with not being able to insert Peer branches directly below the selected branch, but it's very important that we add new branches to the bottom of the level to keep it consistent with the taxonomy within the existing application.

Thanks,

Morgan

Yes Morgan ​..It is possible but we will discuss more on thurshday call and then will decide.

Ok. Sounds good, Harsh . We'll discuss then.

Morgan

Morgan  

I'd just like to confirm that you had previously decided that adding to the top of a level would be easier for admins to manage. As I recall our discussion, the thought process was that adding branches to the top of the level would make them easier for admins to find/access via the reorder function. 

Either way will work but I want to certain you are considering that this was an intentional decision based on the previous discussion. 
 

For reference: https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/13649-add-new-subject-greater-add-to

Hi Melissa ,

The discussion in the TargetProcess referenced above was made in the context of having the ability to insert peer branches below the branch where they were inserted. The decision to add branches to the top of the level was only made for in the context of where a child branch was added, not a peer branch. This way the admin user would be be able to add branches to the top of the next level or below a specific branch depending on whether they decided to add a peer or child branch. However, now that we've eliminated the ability to add branches below the peer, we need re-examine the whole process.

I'm going to discuss with Paul and we'll discuss on Thursday.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Melissa and Harsh ,

I had a discussion with Paul on the issue above, and I'd like to outline our proposed options for resolving the problem in order of preference:

Harsh and Ketan , please review and determine the amount of time needed to achieve each of these options, and we will determine the appropriate solution during our call on Thursday.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Morgan ​,

Do you want to implement any one from above mentioned 3 proposed solution in ISlG?

Hi Harsh ,

Yes, we want to implement 1 of the 3 options above in order of preference (i.e., option 1 is the most preferred and option 3 is the least preferred). Could you please estimate the amount of time to implement all three options, and we'll do a cost-benefit analysis to determine which option to implement.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Naomi and Melissa ,

During our call on July 23rd, we agreed that implementing option 1 above is feasible. Could you please confirm whether the appropriate requirements have been integrated into the applicable user stories.

Thanks,

Morgan

Note I've created a separate to-do under ISLG, so that we track this separately from ILG: Problem with adding Peer branches to trees in both ILG and ISLG - TOLOGIX - ISLG App Rebuild

Morgan For ILG we have given the admin the ability to select where the peer branch is added. Please see sample user stories below:

New branch: https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/16521-ilg-team-feedback-create-new-tag

Move: https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/16545-ilg-team-feedback-tag-directory-greater

Copy: https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/16855-ilg-team-feedback-tag-directory-greater

Edit: https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/16541-ilg-team-feedback-tag-directory-greater

Perfect. Thanks Melissa . I see all the user stories are in Done status. Does that mean the changes have been implemented?

Morgan

Morgan  

Yes these have been implemented and tested on dev.

Mel

Ok. Great. I'll mark the to-do complete.

Morgan

Having said that, we're talking about ILG right? Similar fixes are still pending in ISLG right?

Morgan

Hi Morgan , 

Just noting that the above cards are moved to done in Target Process.

Regarding this fix in ISLG that is tracked through here: Problem with adding Peer branches to trees in both ILG and ISLG - TOLOGIX - ISLG App Rebuild and is still in the backlog

Great. Thanks Naomi .

Morgan 

Hi Jitesh ,

Could you please confirm whether this change has been implemented in http://www.infrastructurelawguide.com/Admin/Login.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Morgan and Jitesh , 

Just highlighting that the above functionality has been added to infrastructurelawguide.com, however I am experiencing a bug with the "branch location" field that I have logged here: https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/restui/board.aspx?#page=bug/20412&appConfig=eyJhY2lkIjoiNTBFODBFN0M1RkNFMDJDREQ3MjFFRjYwM0NFNzdGQUQifQ==

Hi Morgan and Naomi ,

Please check respected user story in Targetprocess with Acceptance criteria and make this To Do's as completed.

Thanks,
Jitesh

Great. Thanks Jitesh . When the user story clears UAT and is marked as Done, we'll complete this to-do.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Morgan , 

I've moved the following card: https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/restui/board.aspx?#page=bug/20412&appConfig=eyJhY2lkIjoiNTBFODBFN0M1RkNFMDJDREQ3MjFFRjYwM0NFNzdGQUQifQ== to done in target process