Morgan  

This feature does exist however the logic does not align with what you have stated above. 

The subsequent developments link has been designed and implemented with the following logic:

The label will appear based on a dispute document existing with the same dispute in the dispute field + a proceeding stage later than the selected value in the 'Proceeding stage' field of the current document

When the user clicks that link, they will be directed to the dispute in the document library with all documents from the dispute listed below. 

Please see the criteria here: 
https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/10105-doc-details-greater-subsequent-developments

Hi Melissa ,

OK. I think we have an issue then. There is no legacy data to populate the proceeding stage field across the Dispute Documents. Therefore, the subsequent developments field is useless unless we go back and assign that data to all 8,221 dispute documents in the system (which is not feasible).

I assumed that we had updated the requirements to accommodate this issue when we created the Related Document(s) field, but I see now that's not the case. We'll need to come up with a work around that leverages the documents in the "Related Document(s)" field. 

Do you want to have a quick call to discuss?

Thanks,

Morgan 

Sure Morgan  

I'm available now

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88023711537?pwd=NUxXWkFJZGYrN2dkcitQUTBVOWRadz09

Meeting ID: 880 2371 1537
Passcode: 481795
One tap mobile
+16473744685,,88023711537# Canada
+16475580588,,88023711537# Canada

Morgan

Let me know when you'd like to chat.

It may be as simple as adding some criteria to the existing functionality:

The label will appear based on a dispute document existing with the same dispute in the dispute field + a proceeding stage later than the selected value in the 'Proceeding stage' field of the current document - OR - if there is data in the 'Related documents' field on the dispute document master list record.

I think maintaining the existing logic will be a better admin experience moving forward.

The issue is however that I don't believe 'Related documents' is a hard coded field, and therefor is not possible to build this kind of logic into it, so this would be an additional change to the master list form and I don't know the implications of that on the migrated data.

Mel

Hi Melissa ,

Thanks for the call. As we discussed, please discuss implementing the solution above with Harsh , and then we'll discuss next steps.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Melissa ,

I talked to Paul about the solution above, and he's onboard. However, we probably want to change the label of the notice to something along the lines of the following:

WARNING: see other documents that may have affected the findings in this decision or award.

Thanks,

Morgan 

Morgan  

I spoke to Harsh about this change this morning. We should be able to make the 'Relevant documents' field hard coded without impacting the migrated data. He is going to review the criteria I have outlined here:

https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/entity/21085-improvement-additional-logic-required

A couple notes:

Mel

Hi Melissa ,

Ok. Great. The updated requirements here look good: https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/restui/board.aspx?#page=bug/21085. At the same time, I still think we should use "Warning" or something similar in the label (perhaps "Notice" or "Caution"). It's suppose to serve as a warning to users that the document they are viewing may have been invalidated by another document, and that they need to do further due diligence to confirm. Also, "Subsequent developments" does not concisely describe Related Documents, because this field also includes documents that may been issued in previous or parallel stages of the proceedings.

Paul , do you have any suggestions on the terminology we should use?

Regarding the loading time, we need to have this and the references by other documents features integrated into the documents cards, so Harsh and the team will need to figure out a way to make that happen without compromising the performance of the application. As I've mentioned previously, I'm not opposed to setting scheduled SQL agent jobs that run nightly to populate this data so that the data does not need to get pulled in real-time. The data needs to be presented to users, but it doesn't need to be in real-time. This applies to various loading issues that we've reported across the Subscriber side of the application.

Thanks,

Morgan

How about  "Notice: You may want to consider other documents that could be relevant to this document"? That way, it covers subsequent developments, as well as documents from previous or parallel proceedings.  

Thanks,

Paul

Hi Paul ,

I think that message is still a little ambiguous. We've received criticism that we're not providing notice to users when a document has been subject to annulment, so I want the message to be explicit. How about this?

Notice: see other documents and proceedings that may have affected the findings in this decision or award.

Morgan

Sure, that sounds good to me.

Paul

Great. Thanks Paul .

Melissa , I've updated the requirements in https://industrialagency.tpondemand.com/restui/board.aspx?#page=bug/21085. However, I noted that the there isn't anything in the requirements that specifies where the "see other documents and proceedings" link leads. Where will this direct users, and will they be able to easily return to the page where the original card was presented?

Thanks,

Morgan

Morgan I've added a line of text to explain this:

See other documents and proceedings links to expanded view of dispute in Dispute and Dispute Documents library in a new tab.

Looks good. Thanks Melissa .

Morgan 

Hi Morgan and Naomi ,

We have deployed this task on staging.islg.

Also, Due to avoid performance issue, We fetch the Subsequent label through SQL Job. The Job is running everyday midnight 1:00 AM Ottawa time. 

It means once you add data on admin side you can verify on subscriber side by next day.

For Proceeding Stage Order logic, Currently We have done this task as per following story's logic.

The order for Dispute Document: Proceeding Stage field options is as follows:

Hi Harsh ,

Things look good on staging.islg. However, I noticed that the link in the Notice extends to the space:

image.png 54.5 KB • Download

Could you please fix this.

Naomi , please perform your testing as well before we mark this to-do complete.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Harsh ,

Another issue in addition to the one above, further to the video below, it would be ideal if the link contained in "Notice: see other documents and proceedings that may have affected the findings in this decision or award" linked directly to the document in question within the Dispute Document library, rather than the dispute itself:

Change link location for Notice feature (28-Sep-21).mp4 4.72 MB • Download

This will make it easier for the user to identify the document within the dispute and navigate to other documents from there.

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Morgan ,

The above both changes have been done on staging.islg. Please check and confirm.

Hi Harsh ,

The issue with the link is resolved, but further to the video below, the link is still not taking me to specific document within the dispute:

Probolem Notice link alignment.mp4 4.91 MB • Download

Thanks,

Morgan

Hi Morgan ,

The above issue is resolved on staging.islg. Please check and confirm.

Looks good, Harsh . Marking to-do and backlog item complete.

Morgan