owned this note
owned this note
Published
Linked with GitHub
# Use Case Testing form - UC8
**Reviewer**: Marisa
**OS (including version)**: MacOS 10.15.7
**Browser (including version)**: Firefox 85.0.2
**Use case**: [use case 8](https://use-cases.nih-cfde.org/uc-0008/)
**Review type**: manual
**Role groups**: NIH CFDE GTEx Reviewers (after accepted invitation)
# 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
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.**
- Does this description make sense?
- yes, but:
- we should edit the names of things to be the specific CFDE portal label - for example, "Review page" seems to be the "Submitted Datapackage" page on the portal. I guess the "Review Catalog" would be the "Browse Data"?
- maybe we should add a description of how to review/how to fix submission to this use case
- 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:
- Got invite email, clicked on "Click here to apply for membership."
- signed into Globus, next page to "Join Group" by clicking "Link It Now"
- Next page is "Link an identity", click "Continue"
- Check email for verification code and enter on Globus page to authenticate email, click "Submit"
- Next page, "Log into your primary identity", click "Continue", fill out info (name, org), click "Accept Invitation".
- Got email confirmation "Application Approved - Welcome to NIH CFDE GTEx Reviewers"
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments
- just a note: now I can see the GTEx Reviewers group under "Groups" on my Globus account page
![](https://i.imgur.com/5P48zXQ.png)
![](https://i.imgur.com/2gSpW2e.png)
Action: Go to https://app-staging.nih-cfde.org/ and log in. Now groups show GTEx Reviewers
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments
Action: Click on "Data Review", see "Submitted Datapackage" page ("Kristin logs in to the portal using an existing identity, and clicks through to the Review page")
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments
- it worked in that I see things that look like review pages, but it's not obvious what to do/click next so we'll need to document the steps
![](https://i.imgur.com/yEzKKVy.png)
**For the questions below: clicked on "Actions" > "View details" icon**
![](https://i.imgur.com/Fhd2E6X.png)
Action: Checking - "How many data files exist for her DCC overall?" - under Submitted Tables, see number of rows for "file" (24,455 files)
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments
![](https://i.imgur.com/EnSZWiD.png)
Action: Checking - "How many subjects are represented?" - see number of rows for "subject" (981)
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments
Action: Checking - "How many and which data types are represented?" - see number of rows for "data_type" (2)
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments
Action: Checking - "How many and which anatomy terms are represented?" - see number of rows for "anatomy" (51)
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments
Action: Checking - "What Project names are associated with her DCC?" - I see 1 row for "project" in the Submitted Tables but 0 Projects in Data Breakdown. The Project name in "Browse Data" is "Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx)"
- [x] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- If not, why not: information looks different on Browse Data/Submitted Table vs. Summary
- Other Comment
![](https://i.imgur.com/Kn9wC8j.png)
Action: Checking - "How many biosamples are in those Projects?" - I found "biosample_in_collection" (210,568), but I don't see the same for Projects
- [ ] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- If not, why not: couldn't find this information
- Other Comments
Action: Checking - "How many data types are in those Projects?" - from review page, clicked "Browse data". There are 2 data types (DNA sequence, RNA sequence)
- [x] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- If not, why not: given the answers for the other questions, i expected this to be in the Submitted Datapackage Submitted Table
- Other Comments
![](https://i.imgur.com/aCRfsQd.png)
![](https://i.imgur.com/hDzpEqd.png)
Action: "Kristin can determine whether the Review Catalog they submitted is what they expected given their data submission" - compare based on numbers of files, subject, etc. submitted
- [x] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- If not, why not: requires a bit of searching across Submitted Tables, Browse Data, Summary to find all the info, which you might expect to find in 1 place
- Other Comments
Action: "Kristin can also do spot checks of the data, or see the outcome of specific searches by browsing the Review Catalog." - Use the "Browse data"
- [x] Worked
- [x] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments
<!-- Action:
- [ ] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments -->
### Things that should not have worked for Reviewer Group, but kind of did --> FIXED ON DEV
With permssions set to: LINCS Reviewers
Login, Groups:
![](https://i.imgur.com/IikqFJu.jpg)
Click on "Data Review", click on pencil
![](https://i.imgur.com/S6Lob5B.jpg)
Scroll down to "DCC Approval Status", click blue arrow
![](https://i.imgur.com/f3ZP7qF.jpg)
Select "content approved" blue check box
![](https://i.imgur.com/JDpe4fU.jpg)
"DCC Approval Status" now says "content approved"
![](https://i.imgur.com/s5Bn7SJ.jpg)
Click "Save"
403 error
![](https://i.imgur.com/ljBWLNF.jpg)
## 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.
- for all the "Summarize [C2M2 term] hosted by CF Program X" tasks, I could find the number of rows/I assume unique entries for the C2M2 terms (file, subject, etc.). The Submitted Table doesn't show the values say for all data types represented in the submission, but you can find that in the Refine search boxes on the Browse Data page.
- need to add a task for "Summarize all biosamples hosted by CF Program X" - this task doesn't exist yet
- some of the questions were about finding x number of data types per project, biosamples per project - but for some submissions, this info might be submitted/only available per Collection. We may want to edit the questions to e.g., "How many biosamples are in those Projects or Collections?"
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 -->
## 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.
- requirements related to "assay types" should be "data types" for this use case (assay types were not specifically mentioned in the use case, but of course, they are another thing reviewers can check - so we can either add all the C2M2 term reqs or only those specifically mentioned in UC)
- `r-00007: The C2M2 model will support information relating assay types to CF programs ✅ June 2020`
- `r-00008: The catalog will store information relating assay types to CF programs ✅ June 2020`
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>
<!-- Action:
- [ ] Was not testable
- [ ] Worked
- [ ] Results as expected
- If not, why not:
- Other Comments
-->
# Overall
What difficulties did you encounter while completing your use case?
- there are a lot of nested pages after you click "Review Data". it's a bit confusing to navigate - is it possible to add a navigation tree to the webpage?
- a little overwhelming knowing what to click/where to find information. maybe each submission datapackage page could have a short, static message at the top like "Click View details icon to see the number of terms represented by your submission. Click Browse Data to check outcome of specific searches. Click Summary Charts to see...".
Did you see any spelling, grammar or similar mistakes on any resource you visited in completing your use case?
- no
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?
- once the submission has been reviewed, what is the process for approving it?
- there are a lot of links on this datapackage page, not sure what all of them are for:
![](https://i.imgur.com/eelHI52.png)
- is it possible to add a progress bar at the top of submission pages? similar in function to the "ingest status", but more graphical and showing all the steps in the review/approval process
- in review > reviewed > DCC approved > CFDE reviewed > CFDE approved > released... something like that
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
[Link to QA screens for reference](https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-SVyGzTsKy5Ke8o6s_lFE6LCF_BrJ2a/view)
Home page
- [ ] Download button style now matches wireframe
- [ ] chart in upper right corner reflects data
- [x] Color Palette is updated
Dashboard
- [ ] "Select Data view" box present to show which dashboard graphs are available
- [ ] Download button style now matches wireframe
- [ ] Timestamp for data missing
DCC Review
- [x] Numbers have links **Assuming this is for the numbers on the Summary page, yes they have links**
- [x] Scroll bar in Data Review table **Assuming this is for the "Data Review" box on Summary page, yes it has scroll bar**
Registry
- [ ] [Spelling correct](https://github.com/nih-cfde/cfde-deriva/issues/131)
Navbar
- [ ] Bolded option in navbar when page is selected **The text on the navbar doesn't look bolded when I select it**
- [x] Log out button styles
- [x] Locks next to Dashboard and Data Review links missing
- [x] Color Palette