|#||Assigned||Description||Date Identified||Due Date||Date Completed||Status|
|Mayo/Jason||We have run into multiple issues where the performance on the DEV tier has be a problem due to Mayo not being able to replicate the slow points due to the drastic difference in DEV resources. We discuss this with the systems team and they requested us to put in a DRT ticket that provides the specs to match the Mayo DEV server.||08/30/13||The server resources have been expanded with an addition vCPU and an additional 2GB memory. Initial tests have shown better performance but the testing is ongoing.|
|Area of Interest||Details|
We received the additional 2GB of RAM on the stage server but the systems team reported that the out of memory errors are still present on initiation. The operations team has not been able to replicate the condition once everything is cached. Justin from the systems team is verifying that there are no longer out of memory errors after caching is complete.
The problem appears to be resolved when rebooting the JBoss container but this is needed on every start up. The operations team is sending the links to the logs to Mayo so they can investigate where the caching is being done and see where additional resources could be needed.
CTS2 and URI Resolver – Approval to move to production is in place. The URL's are being created a Jason will be putting in a ticket for the firewall exception on Stage.
There appears to be an issue on stage with URI Resolver connecting to the MySQL database. Mayo recommended that we copy the database over from the QA tier again to fix.
|LexEVS 6.0 and 5.1||Both are on production and working.|
Testing and AppScan have been completed for the 2.3 release and we have received approval to move to production from Preston. It was decided that although the 2.3 release of the browser works with LexEVS 6.0 API we should wait for the 6.1 release to get to production before deploying the browsers to production.
For the 2.4 release, we have been evaluating alternative value set tree implementations. Have started design of a custom built value set tree view. The biggest issues is with the value set selection check boxes. It is difficult to implement without style sheets.
|Meta Download Validation App||Work on the GUI and continuing discussion on how the pages will be updated (Plone vs deployment from SVN)|
|Term Suggestion Form||AppScan has passed.|
|NCIm Browser 2.3|
Evaluated prioritized trackers and providing LOE.
The 2.3 release is approved to move to Production but waiting for the LexEVS 6.1 deployment to production.
Provided technical support to the Operations team on trouble-shooting a multiple CDISC Submission Values issue. The issue appears to be data related. The new data have a source prefix that is not recognizable by the report writer application.
|GF#31670||Changing standard width to 960 pixels.|
Identified some CSS elements that control the rendering of browser pages.
|GF#33063||Tree Hierarchy Redesign.|
Assessed the complexity of developing a fully Section 508 complaint tree from scratch.
Tree script must be developed using only basic HTML tags like: <ul>, <li>, <img>, and <input>.
Browser compatibility issues must be identified and addressed.
Possible issues include: (1) An ordinary HTML check box has two states only (checked and unchecked), the partially checked state as seen in the existing value set tree will no longer be supported; and (2) The <div> tag is generally used to group block-elements to format them with CSS and support hide and show of children nodes; with the CSS completely turned off, the collapsing and expansion of a tree node can become a problem.
|GF#32816||Migrate to LexEVS API 6.1.||6/28/2013||1 Developer||We are still reviewing the new deployment of LexEVS 6.1 on DEV. This date is dependent on the value sets issues describe previously.|
|Moving up Development Time||7/17/2013||We are pushing to get the coding done for a July 17th review by the EVS users. This will give the users a chance to provide input on the implementation before we completely freeze the code.|
|Pushing back the start of the user evaluation||7/22/2013||Having an issue with the exact match search. Working with mayo to get it resolved but need it fixed before user can review.|
|Delay starting QA testing for Term Browser and NCIm Browser||7/13/2013||We had to delay the start of the QA testing since a fully functioning API has not been established on the QA tier.|
|Delays with the final release candidate of LexEVS 6.1 API on QA||9/6/2013||The LexEVS 6.1 release has been extended to mid to late October. Sense the browsers are dependent on the API we will need to extend the release date to late October/early November.||Deployment by 9/30 is at risk|
|Delays with LexEVS 6.1 API due to deployment setup/AppScan||11/8/2013||There has been issues with getting all the components of LexEVS 6.1 setup on the DEV tiers. We have also received vulnerabilities from the AppScan on the QA tier that were not found on the DEV tier. These vulnerabilities require software patches to both the infrastructure and browser software requiring a new tag.|
|Government Shutdown and Contract delays||10/21/2013||The deployment schedule has been delayed by 3 weeks due to the government shutdown and subsequent delays to the contract start up.|
|Area of Interest||Details|
|Term Browser 2.3 Release||Provide required support for deployment to Prod tier.|
|Term Browser 2.4 Release||Continue design activities for new feature requests|
|Term Suggestion Application Release||Make any required fixes from QA testing.|
|NCIm Browser 2.3 Release|
Provide required support for deployment to Prod tier.
|NCIm Browser 2.4 Release||Continue design activities for new feature requests.|
Risks, Issues, Dependencies
|#||Opened Date||Due Date||Description||Likelihood (H, M, L)||Impact||Assigned||Status||Mitigation Strategy|
|6/19/13||11/27/13||Term Browser 2.3 and LexEVS 6.1 are in parallel development with the Term Browser having a dependency on LexEVS release. Both have a hard deployment date of 9/30/2013. Anticipating some QA resource limitations with both schedules being in parallel.||M||Jason||Monitoring both schedules and will provide status to QA to make sure resources are available.|
|7/17/2013||Removal of JAVA 1.6 from desktops. The Term Browser deployments using AntHillPro require JAVA 1.6. Putting in a request for a waiver until we can upgrade.||This would affect the deployments and production environment for the EVS tools. It sounds like this is going to be a future issue but we should have time to upgrade before it is part of the CBIIT tech stack.||Provided a level of effort for migrating all of the EVS applications to Java 1.7 to the Technical Project Manager and government sponsor.|
|7/31/2013||We currently have an issue where the browsers are ready to move to the QA tier for testing but due to the dependency of LexEVS 6.1 cannot start the QA testing process. LexEVS 6.1 does not currently have all the pre-QA qualification to proceed with the deployment to the QA tier.||With a hard deadline of Sept. 30 for both the browsers and LexEVS API 6.1 there is concern that there will be time to finish all the testing and deployments on time.||This is closed. The hard deadline was expanded due to factors we cannot control.|
|Term Browser 2.3 release dependent on the LexEVS 6.1 release. See the Issue listed for 7/31/2013 for details on the status.|