Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Bug when Adding a document to the tracker

Robert Sparks <> Wed, 22 February 2012 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235FB21F8601; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:17:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.396
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.558, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0KCbBa4CW9lu; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:17:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE40921F850D; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:17:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1MLGtcY018534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:16:59 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:16:55 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Laursen <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070003000500090102080602"
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: The IESG <>,
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Bug when Adding a document to the tracker
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the IOLA / DB Schema Conversion Tool Project <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:17:05 -0000


Cindy and I stumbled over what we first thought was a bug, but it turned 
out to be a surprising
feature/side-effect of the conversion effort.

The data we've been collecting on the edit-info-form (what we have been 
using to add a document to the
tracker or to change it's IESG state/telechat date, etc.) about which 
area a document belongs to is not being
used by any part of the production datatracker other than that form.

So, it will not appear on the form in the new system (and the data 
collected in the old system is
not being migrated I believe).

That really surprised me, but after digging through the code and 
discussing it with Ole, I'm convinced it's

If we find a need to start collecting that data again in the future, it 
won't be hard to add.


On 2/22/12 11:18 AM, Ole Laursen wrote:
> 2012/2/21 Robert Sparks < 
> <>>
>     The biggest is that the form didn't ask for the area the document
>     should be associated with.
>     It occasionally happens that an AD from outside the area takes the
>     shepherd role for a document, so
>     you can't infer this from which AD is assigned.
> Right. At the moment, we don't store an area at all. Grepping for it, 
> the only place I managed to find using the attribute apart from the 
> edit form is the agenda document template where the proxy wrapper will 
> infer the area from the WG (if there's a WG) or else from the 
> shepherding AD.
> The search page looks for the area of the WG in the old schema if you 
> do a search for area, not the area attribute which is perhaps not 
> surprising if it's only set for documents in the IESG process.
> So do you think this is a problem still?