Bugs & Features
Please, report any bugs encountered during testing. Describe the bug so that also provider can understand the problem.
|#Issue No.||Name||Description||Assigned to||@Reporting date||Status||Comments|
|#1||Server Timeout?||<!--<Annotations> <Annotation> <Context>OpenUP</Context> <ISODateTime>2012-11-15T10:29:09.180Z</ISODateTime> <MethodOrAgent>ODIS V0.1</MethodOrAgent> <Type>Warning</Type> <Message>Access denied to media object.</Message> <Suggestion></Suggestion> </Annotation> </Annotations>||Peer Schwirtz BGBM||@unknown||open|
Please report any features, which should be implemented. Features are defined as real improvement/ new functionalities of the current tool.
|#Feature No.||Name||Description||@Reporting date||Status||Comments|
|#1||Summary Report||Produce summarized export of test results (human readable), e.g. tested items: 100; bug No. 1: 50 of 100 items wrong format, bug No. 2: 20 of 100 items scientific name not recognized, etc.||15 Nov 12||suggested feature||This would allow providers/ coordinators to assess the data quality of a provider in a better way.|
|#2||Mineralogy||Quality check of mineralogical datasources should also be possible. Example: Prague (NM)||15 Nov 12||suggested feature|
|#3||List of problematic IDs||It would be good to get a list of IDs for which problems in the quality check were discovered. Maybe this could be listed by rule and included in feature #1.||15 Nov 12||suggested feature|
|#4||Filter by range of IDs||Search by ranges of IDs, e.g. 1-10 not only 1;2;3;...||15 Nov 12||suggested feature|
|#5||Checking large datasets||make the check of datasources with a big amount of records available||15 Nov 12||ongoing|