Hi Martin :

This is a regression issue from Re: Provision extract not working - TOLOGIX - ISLG App Rebuild that affects users on app.islg. Whenever user clicks on provision extract, it should load the HTML text as in the first example of ILC Article 15. Please add it to unplanned/critical.

ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentaries (2001) Article 15

Provision Extract not working properly 2 (25-Aug-22).mp4 4.74 MB • Download

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Paul , this seems like a document issue.
Perhaps duplicate IDs or some other issue with the actual HTML of the document.

Harsh : I have created DevOps task https://dev.azure.com/tologix/ISLGRebuild/_workitems/edit/2126 in the current sprint.
Please make sure to log a [tech] comment in the task.

Thanks,
-Martin

Hi Paul ,

This issue is resolved on staging.islg. Please check and confirm.

Martin , I have explained [Tech] in Devops task and all will discuss this task in our scrum call.

Hi Harsh and Paul ,

I have tested on staging, and provision extracts are working well now:

image.png 40.7 KB • Download

Hi Harsh , can you install on app.islg?

Thanks,
-Martin

Hi Martin ,

Is it urgent for you ? Because I need to publish the dll on production and it is difficult because some other tasks are in progress mode.

Hi Harsh ,

In this case, it can wait until deployment of other Sprint 22 items next week.

This was installed on app.islg today.
Marking it as complete.

Hi Martin :

Provision extracts are not working properly as shown below again for the ICSID Convention Article 25 sub-provisions. Article 25 is working, but any sub-provisions (e.g., Article 25(1) or Article 25(2)) aren't. Could Sharmila add a script to run in order to catch this issue going forward?

Provision Extract not working properly 3 (19-Sep-22).mp4 1.03 MB • Download

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Harsh :

I am concerned this is becoming an endemic problem that I find periodically. As shown below, "World Bank Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment" cannot load any of provision extracts. How could we avoid this regression issue?

Provision Extract not working properly 4 (6-Oct-22).mp4 5.32 MB • Download

Martin : is this something we could potentially script test on even if it is a long list? 

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Paul ,

This issue is resolved. on app.islg. Please check and confirm.

As, we already discussed this issue with Martin ago as we developed one mechanism that this kind of html we find then will add UIN in database table nd then it will be works fine as per code. As this issue is in html ids and it is not technically feasible to find this kind of documents through script.

I will discuss with Martin once he will back.

Cc : Martin  

Thanks for your response, Harsh . The issue is resolved for this specific instrument.

Martin : if we cannot run a script to identify the same issue throughout Article Citator, is our only recourse manually checking every instrument? Please let me know.

Paul

Hi Martin :

If running a script is not an option, how could we spot provision extracts breaking down from time to time? Is the script that Harsh is describing the same as Sharmila's test script? If not, could Sharmila specifically work on this script?

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Harsh ,

Let's discuss this topic on Thursday.

Thanks,
-Martin

Hi Paul ,

Harsh and I have discussed this topic yesterday. We are devising a potential multi-steps plan to perform an audit for that particular issue.

Harsh is looking into the feasibility and will circle back in this thread.

Thanks,
-Martin

Hi Harsh :

I want to ensure this stays on your radar.

Martin : Please create a DevOps item if necessary.

Thanks,

Paul

I spoke with Harsh today. He will post his proposed process here on Friday.
I will make sure to create a devops item for it once we agree on the steps.

-Martin

Hi Martin :

Please follow up with Harsh , as it's been over a week since the last post.

Thank you,

Paul

Hi Harsh ,

Per our discussion today, I have created DevOps task https://dev.azure.com/tologix/ISLGRebuild/_workitems/edit/2316 to track this.

-Martin

Hi Martin :

I see DevOps 2316 above is marked as Done, and you had a comment to Harsh on Monday which isn't answered yet - could you follow up and see if this is something Sharmila's script could eventually detect or not before I decide to close this?

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Paul ,

This task is now in my court.

The DevOps item is closed because Dev-IT completed their part, which was to pull a list of provision extracts that may potentially not match the IDs in our HTML documents.

The next step - which I am currently working on - is to create a Python script that will scan HTML documents, and attempt to compare with the values we have in our SQL database. I still need to reach out to Harsh to make sure my script will perform the correct steps.

I plan on discussing with Harsh when they are back on Friday.

Thanks,
-Martin

Sounds good, Martin . I'll leave this item open until you update the progress here.

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Paul ,

I was finally able to complete my audit. I have found over 2,000 issues.
Each issue identified is a provision that was enabled for the Citator, but that will not work if used (meaning that the Provision Extract - for example - would show a blank window).

More than 75% (1,524) of the issues found come from 10 documents:
OTI/0022 (501 issues)
ARB/0055 (234 issues)
BIT/0742 (157 issues)
OTI/0062 (145 issues)
OTI/0005 (140 issues)
FTA/0041 (89 issues)
OTI/0002 (83 issues)
BIT/0695 (64 issues)
BIT/0395 (63 issues)
BIT/0129 (48 issues)

I am attaching a spreadsheet with the details.

export.xlsx 152 KB • Download

I think that we will need to tackle these in 2 parts:

Thanks,
-Martin

CC: Irit and Harsh  

Hi Irit :

Do you mind taking a look at the spreadsheet that Martin posted and weed out the ones that shouldn't be flagged as provision extract to be displayed? I see some provisions on the list are under a placeholder (citation and source) and I doubt we XML/HTML'd all the legal instrument on the list. 

Please post your edited spreadsheet here.

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Irit :

It looks like this one slipped through the cracks. Please have a look at the spreadsheet as mentioned above and let us know.

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Paul and Martin ,

The provision extract issue has not been resolved. I will post a video tomorrow at the latest.

Thank you,
Irit

Hi Paul , Martin , Harsh  

There are still provision extract issues.  

Using BIT/0129 as an example.  For this one, please ignore the extra/duplicate provisions from the provision list. 

Please have a look at the HTML coding for BIT/0129 HTML and let us know if there's an issue with the provision ID tags. 
And please have a look at the Article sup-paragraph provisions in the provision list for BIT/0129 on app.islg and let us know if the provision that are selected are being pulled from the HTML.

video1363458072.mp4 36.8 MB • Download

Thank you,
Irit

Hi Harsh ,

I have created task https://dev.azure.com/tologix/ISLGRebuild/_workitems/edit/2790 under Unplanned issues to track this.

Thanks,
-Martin

Hi Martin ,

We checked issue and found that this document and provisions we migrated from legacy application. now scenario is in provision table the provision number stored without parenthesis : Art2.1 and html the Id having parenthesis : Art2.1).

Due to this reason our code doesn't match database value with html id. For this thing we need to update the code in backend side.

But my concern is this is only one case. might be there are many cased where Database provision and html id are not matching so how we will Identify ??

We will discuss more in Monday's call.

Irit Piyush  

Hi Martin :

What was the conclusion with this item after your call?

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Paul , I do not recall if we ended up discussing this, and/or what was the outcome.

Hi Harsh : do you remember? If not, I can schedule a short meeting with the 3 of us.

Hi Martin and Paul  

I thought we resolved this issue as we updated at code level and match the HTML ID with stored provision in database.

Hi Martin ,

I do not believe this was resolved.

Using the same example from the video I provided above:

Live staging site:
Belgium - Luxembourg - Egypt BIT (1999) [English translation] (BIT/0129)
Article 2(1)

image.png 43.4 KB • Download

BIT/0129, Article 2(1), when I click on "provision extract", this is what we see:

image.png 5.66 KB • Download

We want to see the following text taken from the HTML for BIT/0129 Article 2(1):

image.png 75.3 KB • Download

If we look at the HTML coding for BIT/0129 HTML, we see that there is an HTML ID tag for Article 2.1

image.png 256 KB • Download

Martin , please let me know when is a good time to have a call about this.

Thanks,
Irit

Hi Harsh :

We need to come up with a solution to separate sub-provisions (e.g., Article 2(1) and Article 3(1)) from the main provisions (e.g., Article 2 and Article 3) in extracts when user selects a sub-provision. It presently shows all sub-provisions when a user clicks on the main provision (which is fine, e.g., Article 2) as shown below but nothing when a user clicks on a sub-provision (e.g., Article 2(1)).

image.png 26.7 KB • Download

image.png 4.64 KB • Download

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Harsh ,

I have added task https://dev.azure.com/tologix/ISLGRebuild/_workitems/edit/3340 to the Unplanned backlog item.

Let me know if you prefer discussing in a Zoom session with Paul, Irit and me.

Thanks,
-Martin

Hi Irit   and Paul ,

This issue is resolved on aap.islg and staging.islg. Please check and confirm.

Martin  

Hi Irit : 

I will let you respond to this, but please leave it open until it is deployed to app.islg (after the end of this sprint). Could you also check a few other BITs to ensure that it is resolved everywhere? 

Thanks, 

Paul

Hi Paul and everyone,

I tested the following on app.islg staging live site and the issue is resolved:

BIT/0129 Belgium - Luxembourg - Egypt BIT (1999) [English translation] 
BIT/0286 Barbados - Canada BIT (1996)
OTI/0002 Energy Charter Treaty (1994) (excerpts)
OTI/0005 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentaries (2001)

Thank you,
Irit

Hi Irit :

You mean staging.islg live site, not app.islg, right?

Harsh : I will leave it open until deployed to app.islg, thanks.

Paul

Hi Paul ,

Yes, I meant to type staging.islg live site.

Irit

Hi Paul and Irit ,

This task is already deployed on app.islg. You can check and confirm.

Martin  

Hi Paul and everyone,

I ran tests on app.islg live site and the issue is resolved there as well.

Paul , please let me know if I can go ahead and mark this task as complete.

Thank you,
Irit