# Use Case Testing form - UC0007

**Reviewer**: Abhijna Parigi
**OS (including version)**: MacOS 10.15.7
**Browser (including version)**: Google Chrome Version 88.0.4324.150 (Official Build) (x86_64)
**Use case**: [UC-0007](https://use-cases.nih-cfde.org/uc-0007/)
**Review type**: manual
**Role groups**: no entry for groups

# Use Case Test

<details><summary>Instructions</summary>
<p>
I would like each use case checked by at least two people. Preferably with a mix of browsers and OS, so that we have a better chance of spotting potential bugs.

1. Choose a use case that you will validate
2. Copy the text from the next comment into a new document
3. Follow the use case, filling out the document as you go
4. If you encounter one of the Quick Tests, check that it is right and check it off. If you don't encounter it as part of your use case, leave it blank. If it doesn't work, add some text explaining the problem
5. When you are done with your use case, post your filled form as a comment in this thread

I recommend starting by looking at the Quick Tests section and seeing which ones will be part of your use case so you can check them as you go instead of backtracking at the end
</p>
</details>

## Use Case Description

**1. Evaluate the description.**
> Natasha is interested in scanning what data already exists that may help in identifying key genomic, transcriptomic and/or proteomic differences

It appears that Natasha would want to refine their search by study type, but the description does not show the user how to filter by study type.

- Does this description make sense?
Yes

- Does it sound like a useful thing to do?
Yes

- Are there any corrections that should be made (spelling, grammar, etc)?

**2. Try to complete the steps as they are described for the persona in the use case.**

<details><summary>Instructions</summary>
<p>
For each step record:
- the specific action you took, for e.g. I clicked on 'leg' in the 'anatomy' filter at [this web address]()
- Whether that action was possible/worked
- Whether the *results* of that action are as described
- and if they are not as described, how they differ
- Any other comments you have, or things you were surprised about. Be specific!

Copy the lines below as many times as needed for your use case
</p>
</details>

Action: I went to the portal and signed in with my UC Davis credentials
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments

Action: I clicked on the "collections" button under "view data by" section. A new tab opened up on my browser.
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments

Action: I typed IPSCs into the search bar on the top and clicked search. I found 19 results as described.
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments

Action: I scrolled down the list of filtering options on the left and located the "Part of Collection" filter.
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments

Action: I chose the first 9 options.
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments: The description says that Natasha chooses 9 that best fit their plan. This is a bit vague because I don't know what Natasha's plan is, so testing it means I choose whatever I want. And that makes me lose confidence that I am doing the right thing.

Action: I clicked on export --> search level csv and saved in on my Desktop.
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments:

Action: I clicked on clear search button below the search bar and typed in "stem cell neu"
- [x] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- I wasn't told what to expect here. How many search results should i see?
- Other Comments:

## Tasks for this use case:

1. Based on the description you walked through, does this list of tasks make sense? If not, why not? Are there missing tasks? Unused tasks? Task descriptions that don't quite match the workflow? Be specific both about which tasks and their specific problems.

It appears there are many unrequired tasks in this list:
t-0018: the word biosample was never used in the description and therefore may not be required for this usecase.
t-0006: I don't know what part of the workflow uses an anatomy filter - this task may not be necessary in this list.
t-0005: I don't know what part of the workflow uses an assay type filter - this may not be necessary in this list.
t-0019: There is no filter by project step in the desciption. I can see this as being something Natasha looks at while they are trying to decide which 9 samples to pick:
> Natasha browses the descriptions for the these results, and the uses the "Part of Collection" filter to select only the 9 that best fit their plan

2. **OPTIONAL (if not already addressed above):**
Check whether each general task works, regardless of whether the specific instance described in the description works.

<details><summary>Instructions</summary>
<p>
For each task record:
- the specific action you took, for e.g. I clicked on 'leg' in the 'anatomy' filter at [this web address]()
- note that tasks are generally broader than the description, so you likely will need to do more than one action to test it
- Whether that action was possible/worked, i.e. was it technically possible to do?
- Whether the *results* of that action are what you expect, i.e. did it 'work' in the way a user would want
- and if they are not as described, how they differ
Copy the lines below as many times as needed for your use case
</p>
</details>

Action:
- [ ] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments

Action:
- [ ] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments

## Requirements for this use case:

1. Based on the description you walked through and it's tasks, does this list of requirements make sense? If not, why not? Are there things you needed but are not listed as requirements? Unused requirements? Requirement descriptions that don't quite match the workflow? Be specific both about which requirements and their specific problems.

There are several unused requirements. See next section for details.

2. **OPTIONAL (if not already addressed above):**
Check whether each requirement works, if possible, regardless of whether the specific instance described in the description works.

<details><summary>Instructions</summary>
<p>
For each requirement record:

- the specific action you took, for e.g. I clicked on 'leg' in the 'anatomy' filter at [this web address]()
- note that requirements are very broad, so you may need to do more than one action to test it
- if you can't find a way to test the requirement, record that and why
- Whether that action was possible/worked, i.e. was it technically possible to do?
- Whether the *results* of that action are what you expect, i.e. did it 'work' in the way a user would want
- and if they are not as described, how they differ

</p>
</details>

---
r-00034: The interface will support the selection of a biosample of interest
Action: From the homepage, i clicked on collections and then entered the search word "ipsc". Then I looked at the contained biosample filter.
- [ ] Was not testable
- [x] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- the filter text does not look like biosamples. There is a web address followed by a number which i assume is the biosample id.

- Other Comments
- i'm not sure i should care about biosample at all. it's not in the description. this may not be required.

r-00035: The C2M2 model will support information relating biosamples to CF programs

Action: I clicked on the biosample and was taken to tab. I could find the name of the DCC that collected the biosample and the local ID of the biosample.
- [ ] Was not testable
- [x] Worked

- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments: Again, i'm not sure why i care about biosample.

r-00036: The catalog will store information relating Uberon terms to CF programs
Action: I clicked on the anatomy filter and found the only available selection to be "no value"
- [ ] Was not testable
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
anatomy field does not exist for this search cohort but it is add-able by the DCCs.

- Other Comments: description does not ask to search by anatomy. Probably don't need this requirement.

r-00003: The interface will support the selection of an Uberon term of interest
- No anatomy terms associated with search. But if this information is available for a DCC, it can be filtered using the "anatomy" tab on the left nav bar.
- Other comments: description does not ask to search by anatomy. Probably don't need this requirement.

r-00004: The C2M2 model will support information relating anatomy terms to CF programs
same as UBERON
- Other comments: description does not ask to search by anatomy. Probably don't need this requirement.

r-00005: The catalog will store information relating anatomy terms to CF programs
same as UBERON
- Other comments: description does not ask to search by anatomy. Probably don't need this requirement.

r-00006: The interface will support the selection of an assay type term of interest
Action: I clicked on the assay type tab and selected RNA-seq and RNA sequencing assay. These filters were applied to my search

- [ ] Was not testable
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected

- Other comments: This is not a requirement in the descriptions. Probably doesn't need to be there?

r-00007: The C2M2 model will support information relating assay types to CF programs
Action: I looked at the ID namespace column in the previous screenshot. RNA seq assays are associated with specific DCCs
- [ ] Was not testable
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected

r-00008: The catalog will store information relating assay types to CF programs
- see above

r-00010: The catalog will store information relating projects to CF programs
Action: There is no column for project information, so I looked for project information under the "projects" filter and found that i could filter by projects. Four records were available based on my search parameters.
- [ ] Was not testable
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected

r-00014: The interface will support end user download of tables and figures in common formats
- Exported search filtered results as a csv. already described above.

# Overall

What difficulties did you encounter while completing your use case?
> Natasha browses the descriptions for the these results, and the uses the "Part of Collection" filter to select only the 9 that best fit their plan.

- For this part of the description, I was confused about what 9 to pick. If we're thinking only LINCS, there are 10 and not 9.

> Natasha easily combines the two exported files into a single cohort with datasets from LINCS and Metabolomics

- This sentence suggests that they are looking for datasets from two DCCs but I wasn't told to filter by DCC or check that there is data from only two DCCs at any point.

- Overall, there seem to be a bunch of tasks and requirements that don't need to be here.

Did you see any spelling, grammar or similar mistakes on any resource you visited in completing your use case?

There is a typo in this sentence:
> Natasha can then use the persistent_id to go actually obtain the data files (or request access to them) at their parent portal.

What other comments or questions do you have about your use case?

What other comments or questions do you have about any of the resources you visited?
> the esthetics of the portal are not pretty. For example, I don't love that the DCC name is a web link instead of "metabolomics/biosample_id".

What feedback do you have about this form/testing process?

# Quick Tests

Complete test if it is encountered as part of your use case.
- If test works/work is complete check the box.
- If you don't encounter the test during your use case, leave it blank
- If test does not work/work is not complete, note the issue. Be specific!

[Link to QA screens for reference](https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-SVyGzTsKy5Ke8o6s_lFE6LCF_BrJ2a/view)

Home page
- [x] Download button style now matches wireframe
- [x] chart in upper right corner reflects data
- [x] Color Palette is updated

Dashboard
- [x] "Select Data view" box present to show which dashboard graphs are available
- [x] Download button style now matches wireframe
- [ ] Timestamp for data missing

DCC Review
- [ ] Numbers have links
- [ ] Scroll bar in Data Review table

Registry
- [ ] [Spelling correct](https://github.com/nih-cfde/cfde-deriva/issues/131)

Navbar
- [ ] Bolded option in navbar when page is selected
- I don't really know what this means. When i select a data view, it actually becomes lighter (de-highlights)
- [ ] Log out button styles
- [ ] Locks next to Dashboard and Data Review links missing
- [ ] Color Palette

If you are a Reviewer or Submitter, please try the following and document steps with screenshots (including computer clock):

- [ ] On the "Submitted Datapackage" page, I can click the pencil icon
- [ ] I can edit 1 or more field(s) for the Submitted Datapackage - please specify which field(s)
- [ ] I can change the "DCC Approval Status"