Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement offline post-import checklist #831

Open
3 tasks
stufraser1 opened this issue Jan 31, 2018 · 5 comments
Open
3 tasks

Implement offline post-import checklist #831

stufraser1 opened this issue Jan 31, 2018 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@stufraser1
Copy link
Member

Implement a post-data import checklist to ensure data is displaying as expected, to have formalised 'data sign off' of new data before publishing to public server. Sign off to be stored in an admin google sheet recording data imports.

To include

  • data imported correctly (all columns as expected on Admin UI
  • Data styled with appropriate metadata in Geonode, download functions correctly. Thumbnail shows correctly with basemap
  • Data shows in TH UI map as expected, according to domain and data quality rating (relative to other layers). Checks to include data legend and styling.

set up a series of post-import checks: e.g., data used in TH, shows data in window as expected, downloads ok

@stufraser1 stufraser1 self-assigned this Jan 31, 2018
@stufraser1
Copy link
Member Author

Or implement in script for quick admin check on data going in - dataset overview (additional to that already implemented in make process)
Countries covered by a dataset
Whether data restricted msg shows

@stufraser1
Copy link
Member Author

UPDATE:
Focus of this issue was on ensuring the data displayed correctly in TH. This is more of a manual check by a TH admin, to be conducted in the ThinkHazard preview page, BEFORE publishing to public server. Sign off to be stored in an admin google sheet recording data imports.

Manual admin checklist includes:

  • whether the data layer has been uploaded to TH correctly (this is shown in Admin page, and shows whether all mandatory metadata was included in the GeoNode layer, and whether RP layers in a hazard set match each other for extent, origin)
  • in UI: check that the layer shows in regions where it is the highest-rated layer (checking data quality logic has worked as expected)
  • in UI: Does data owner show correctly in the user interface
  • in UI: is download / view permission and licence information correctly applied

@stufraser1
Copy link
Member Author

Suggest this is written to the proposed Slate admin manual

@fjacon
Copy link
Collaborator

fjacon commented Dec 17, 2019

@MamadioCMCC I do not see here anything that needs to be done on ThinkHazard! as it looks like all these are manual check.
Do you confirm ?

@matamadio
Copy link
Contributor

matamadio commented Dec 17, 2019

The original idea was to have a script to check the processing output; then, it turned into a manual check. Revising point by point, there are some minor adjustments that can be implemented on TH side in order to help verify any issue with data import.

whether the data layer has been uploaded to TH correctly (this is shown in Admin page, and shows whether all mandatory metadata was included in the GeoNode layer

If we want to be sure that all important metadata are added, we may simply mark those as mandatory fields when uploading a layer (GeoNode side).

and whether RP layers in a hazard set match each other for extent, origin)

This is partially already covered in the Admin page, "Complete" field (e.g. import issues with files are reported in red).

in UI: check that the layer shows in regions where it is the highest-rated layer (checking data quality logic has worked as expected)

This should just work without need to check; dataset map should also provide this information, allowing to check all at once.

in UI: Does data owner show correctly in the user interface

Instead of checking output, the field should have char limit or automatically truncate too long texts.

in UI: is download / view permission and licence information correctly applied

Again, if this works correctly by code there is no need to check it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants