TTA Tools Sprint Feedback Page

Allie(Firefox, linux)

Specifically testing Submission

proposal already exists (QA sprint 40 proposal 2 ddt)
Submitted from the Observation Specification tab.. On submit, the observations specification disappeared and instead the message of ``No Observation Specifications..'' is displayed. going to Capability Request and back to OS fixes this. Or a refresh fixes this.
Proposal State changed to submitted and a date and time is displayed now. It displays UTC until a refresh, when it changes to local time.
Changed the abstract, saved, and resubmitted. I believe that it worked because the date time changed. A warning popped up warning no history is kept - good.
On proposals' tab, I see the state change and the updated datetime. I can filter on state.
Changing the basic information, no save, resubmit → change not persisted.
Changing capability request, no save, can resubmit → change not persisted. – Not the behavior we want because i could change the CR and not generate a new OS and resubmit.
Re-submit should only be available, i would think, if there are changes to the form. Otherwise, I can keep resubmitting.
Resubmitting on the CR editor briefly displays the Changes Pending banner and then reverts. I did not make any changes though beyond just resubmitted.
There's no system message confirming the resubmission. - it should
No validation still - I submitted an empty CR

Dana (Firefox, Fedora)

User: Dana Balser

Proposals
---------------

- Create Proposal. I had problems creating a proposal. Basically I
was tying to create several proposals quickly (without much detail)
to fill in the summary list of proposals. Here is the procedure:

1. Click Add button under Proposals.
2. Enter Title.
3. Select Solicitation.
4. Click Save (so far so good).
5. Click Proposals (go to summary list).
6. Click Add button under Proposals (create another proposal).
7. I see the form to create a new proposal (title/solicitation) but
the previous proposal is listed; that is, the form is not cleared.
The system hangs (get the spinning cursor).
8. Need to click Home to get out.

- Filtering. This does not work as expected on the summary list view.

State Filter: I can filter on All, Draft or Submitted okay but not
the other fields (e.g., Withdrawn). Maybe the other fields are not
yet supported.

Solicitation Filter: At first this appears not to work at all but maybe
the internet is slow to respond. Selecting "20D" does not work, but maybe
because this solicitation is not included.

Combination Filter: Sometimes combinations do not work. For
example, selecting State="Submitted" and Solicitation="SC_GBT_24B"
list a submitted proposal (good) that is for the Sem_25A
solicitation (not good). See attached screen shot.

Proposals-->Allocation Requests
---------------------------------------------

- Navigation. I created two Allocation Requests (ARs), each with one
Capability Request (CR). I saved them generating Observations
Specifications (OSs). I wanted to compare the OS for each AR. To
do this is a bit of work (see below). This is very logical but time
consuming. Will folks want to compare OSs between ARs? I did only
because I wanted to compare the integration times that were
calculated.

1. Click List button under AR.
2. Click AR1.
3. Click OS.
4. To see the OS for AR2 I have to:
a. Click List button under AR.
b. Click AR2.
c. Click OS.

Proposals-->Allocation Requests-->Capability Request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Ordering. Normally the ordering of the CR is: Field Sources,
Spectral Specifications, Performance Parameters, Calibration
Parameters, Advanced. I performed the following operation:

1. Deleted one source in Field Sources.
2. Click Home (leave Proposals).
3. Dialog box asking if I want to leave: yes (should not save edits).
4. Click Proposals.
5. Click Proposal in question.
6. Click AR in question.
7. Click CR in question. I now see that the ordering of the CR
is: Spectral Specifications, Performance Parameters, Calibration
Parameters, Field Sources, Advanced. (See attached screen shot.)

- Deleting. If I create a single field source (single spectral spec) I
cannot delete it. I have to create another field source (spectral
spec) before I see the menu with the delete option.

Proposals-->Allocation Requests-->Observation Specification
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Missing Sources. See "Test Proposal E". For one AR I created two
CRs. The first CR "GBT Spectral Line C-band" has one field source
and one spectral spec. After this is saved the Observation
Specification is created and looks okay. I then created the second
CR "GBT Spectral Line W43 L-band" which also has one field source
and one spectral spec. After this is saved the Observation
Specification does not include the new source, etc. I thought this
worked before. N.B., I did not (ever) see the popup message
indicating the Observation Specification was created which was in
v0.1.

Allie (Firefox,redhat)

Home page

+Proposals gives error but does take me to the proposal page. I screen capped it.
the "view" button on the proposals also takes me to the proposal page

Proposal Page

New "List" and "Add" Button left side
Filtering on State doesn't work
Filtering on solicitation works.
Created a Proposal with a title and solicitation specified, went back to list and can see it in the List mode.
Added another Proposal. It pre-populated with the same title and semester selection as the first one instead of being blank. Save button isn't available. The form is hanging. On refresh, the Proposal is gone, which is expected as it didn't save. I added a new one again and it now has a blank Title and Solicitation, which is desired. Not sure why the first time it got hung up.

Proposal Creation (Basic Information, Sci Just)

When first creating a proposal, it just wants the Solicitation and a Title.
Once the formed is saved, it will expand to Abstract entry and author widget. The Sci Just and Allocation Request Tabs are also now available and actually look like tabs. The layout is nice so far.
If I enter in an abstract but do not save it and try to go to the Sci Just tab, a warning appears prompting me to confirm to discard my unsaved changes. nice.
I can upload a pdf and delete it. I do see the preview and "view" of the pdf, as I am on linux with firefox.
When I uploaded a different pdf after deleting the first, I no longer have all the buttons. The system Messages say it was uploaded, but the interface looks like it is not uploaded. Refreshing solves the issue and I can see my pdf. I can upload a new pdf as well and it seems to work fine.
When creating a new proposal that hasn't been saved, the only way to "back out" of the process is to hit the Home tab. Selecting the Proposal tab does nothing.

Allocation Requests

Entering the AR tab for the first time appropriately says "No ARs". The add button is the same as before. It does not give the List button because there aren't any ARs I suppose.
The List Proposal Button IS available however, as well as the add proposal button. That may trip someone up at some point.
Adding an AR shows a view with just the Facility selector - as usual.
Once the Capability Request panel and add button are available, the Capability Request vs Observation Specification views are also available. They are the familiar square tabs on the right of the screen.
I like that the Basic Information, Sci Just, AR are clearly tabs and the CR vs OS is a different style. It makes more sense to me because we are toggling to the OS view inside the AR tab. While the CR has tabs as well.
For the DDT solicitation, the GBT Spectral Line capability is the only one available, as expected.
For the Semester solicitation, VLA and GBT facilities are available, as expected.
I can rename the Allocation Request
I can delete ARs

Capability Requests (DDT, GBT)

I can make a crazy long name for a field source. Doing so will cause the tabs on the left with the different field sources to expanded until finally it wraps at the page edge. As it expands, it forces the field source, spectral spec (Etc) tabs to compress to the right. At the line wrap, it forces those tabs down a row and any newly added field source create those tabs above the form entry. I screen capped this.
Field Source, SS, CP, PP do not appear to have different behavior. I can navigate between them without hitting save and I do not lose information.
Saving gives the familiar prompt. Now the CR view tab has a "1" next to it immediately, indicating that there is 1 CR. In v0.1, it would show 0 even though there were 1+ CRs. I wasn't ever sure how to trigger the change. The OS doesn't now have a number next to it. Not sure if it should or not.
Saving make the tab view switch to the first tab, regardless of where I hit the save button at. In this case, it is field source. However, it has been noted that the tab order changes and the trigger is not known.
Go to (A) in Observation Specifications
I can delete CRs
If I am in the capability request and I select "Add AR", it does add it but it leaves me at the page I am on, which might make someone think it hasn't been added. You have to navigate to the list of ARs to see that it has been added. This is not the case when I add a CR: it navigates to the empty CR right away. Same with Proposals.

Observation Specifications (DDT, GBT)

(A) A 2 FS, 1 spectral spec CR has generated 2 Observation specifications. The GBT has partitioning in RA. I put Hen 2-10 in for one source in ICRS and Hen 2-10 in Galactic Coordinates for another, so there shouldn't be two OS and really only 1 target source, as they are identical sources except for the coordinate system. The system doesn't handle this yet though.
The time on source is not correct. I cannot update it either through the Performance Parameters nor the Advanced Tab. — It requires a refresh to see the updated OS.
Filtering on field source works mostly. It doesn't work on the 0th subscan target.
Filtering by band doesn't work
Filtering by intent doesn't work
The long name on the field source causes the filtering to completely push the scan list down beneath the filter panel instead of just wrapping the field source name.
The Scans tab has a nice numerical in the tab showing how many scans are in it.
I can add a scan as previously. There's a save button when I do that and the Status changes from System Generated to User Generated. Nice
Adding a band and field source is the same.

Capability Requests (Semester)

This all looks familiar
As soon as I save an Advanced option, the Performance Parameter no longer works at all.
Navigating to the list of CRs or otherwise prompts the warning about discarding unsaved changes.

Observation Specifications (Semester)

If I save, I get the warning about generating a new OS
When I go to the OS tab, it almost always prompts me again saying there are unsaved changes. But there aren't unsaved changes.
Filtering doesn't work at all here? Had to refresh and now it works just fine, even band and intent.
Submitting generates an error. The button is available though

Dana (Firefox, fedora)

-------------------------
Dana Balser_TTA |
-------------------------

Home
--------

- The solicitation are both open and recently closed. This makes no
sense. Maybe this is just an example of what the TTA member will
see.

Solicitations
------------------

- Looks good. Sem_25A has both VLA and GBT Facilities and all bands
(L-Q), whereas SC_GBT_24B has only the GBT and L,S,C bands.

-------------------
Dana Balser |
-------------------

Home
---------

- I only see the open solicitations.

Proposals
--------------

- A bit slow going from Home to Proposals.

Proposals-->Basic Information
------------------------------------------

- Looks good.

Proposals-->Scientific Justification
-----------------------------------------------

- This looks okay. Might alter text (e.g., replace "5" with "x" since
this will depend on the Proposal Class).

"Each proposal should include a Scientific Justification as a pdf file.

The Scientific Justification should outline the scientific merit
expected if this proposal is awarded time on it's requested facility.

The pdf file should be no more than 5 pages."

- Functionality appears good. Able to upload/view/delete pdf as
expected.

Proposals-->Allocation Requests
---------------------------------------------

- This looks okay. Might alter text.

"Create at least one Allocation Request for each facility you would
like to use.

Time is awarded on a facility per Allocation Request. Awarded time on
a Proposal may only be applied to some of it's Allocation Requests.

If there are multiple acceptable configurations that can meet your
science goals (e.g. minimum required configuration, ideal
configuration), create an Allocation Request for each one to increase
the chances of getting awarded time."

Proposals-->Allocation Requests-->Capability Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

o Proposal: Probing Molecular Cloud-HII Region Dynamics using the OH
Satellite Line Flip (Sem_25A)

- This proposal was a very simple setup. Just edited everything by
hand. One Capability Request (VLA continuum) that included just one
field source and one spectral spec. Edited everything first and
then hit the save button. Pop-up message was nice to let me know
that the observation specification was created.

o Proposal: Multi-Configuration, Multi-Band VLA Proposal (Sem_25A)

- This proposal is more complex. Two ARs (e.g., different array
configs for TAC). Each AR had the same setup of two capabilities
(different bands: X, Ka) and fields sources that should be divided
into two groups on the sky.

- Noticed that the spectral spec for VLA continuum has bandwidth and
spectral resolution. This is a bit confusing since this is not
spectral line. Presumably the time exposure calculation uses
bandwidth since this is continuum?

- When manually entering 40 (in arcsec) for the LAS in the spectral
spec the following was displayed: 39.999999599999995. If I leave
the page and come back the units are degrees. I think this is
expected since we agreed for v0.1 that we would show the precision
necessary for GMVA at W-band and angles are stored in degrees.

- Explored the Advanced tab a bit. Interface seems reasonable. I can
edit any single field source/performance parameter or there is a
utility to update the performance parameter for all field sources.
I looked at the input file format but did not experiment.

o Probing the Warm Ionized Medium toward the Inner Galaxy (SC_GBT_24B)

- This proposal is for the special GBT call. I only see the GBT
listed as a facility as expected.

- When I enter "-11:29:18.9808" for the one field source Dec it
displays -12° 30' 41.01920". This was repeatable. But when I
entered in other numbers for other field sources it seemed to work
fine. Odd.

Proposals-->Allocation Requests-->Observation Specification
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

o Proposal: Probing Molecular Cloud-HII Region Dynamics using the OH
Satellite Line Flip (Sem_25A)

- I specified NO polarization calibration yet there exists a
Calibrate_Pol_Angle scan. This appears to be a bug.

- The integration times appear to be fixed. Changing the rms
sensitivity does not change the time on source. I recall that we
set these to a "reasonable" fixed number when the calculated time
was really small. Indeed this appears to be the case. If I reduce
the rms sensitivity I can see the time change.

o Proposal: Multi-Configuration, Multi-Band VLA Proposal (Sem_25A)

- Okay, for each AR I get four different Observation
Specifications. They are organized into two source groups for each
band. This is reasonable.

- Integration times are not quite what I expect. If I use a frequency
of 9 GHz, a bandwidth of 4 GHz, and rms sensitivity of 10 microJy
then I get an time of 2m40s. From the ECT I get 4m27s. Factor of
1.7 more time on science target. Probably okay for v0.1. The time
does integrate as expected.

- The science target scans tend to have rather small integration times
(e.g., 3 minutes). So if the total time needed on science target is
large (e.g., few hours) there are many scans and thus the overhead
is also much larger than needed. I recall, as noted above, that we
fixed this under certain circumstances but not sure why that is the
case here.

- Explored the effects of changing the sensitivity for one field
source in the advanced tab of the Capability request. This does
change the time on source in the Observation Specification but it
changes all of the field sources instead of the single one that I
altered. This seems to be a bug.

- Explored changing the Observations Specification. Not particularly
intuitive but will probably server the purposes of V0.1.

o Probing the Warm Ionized Medium toward the Inner Galaxy (SC_GBT_24B)

- Not convinced the integration times are correct for the GBT. I have
entered an rms sensitivity of 0.001 Jy/beam (1 mJy), spectral
resolution of 1 km/s, and a frequency of 6 GHz. I estimate about 3
hours on science target from the Python script I wrote, but get 0.1
sec from the tool. My guess is that the bandwidth is being used to
calculate the time instead of the spectral resolution, which is what
I would expect for spectral line. The bandwidth is 100000 km/s
which yields about 0.1 sec, consistent with the tool. So this is
the issue.

Allie - redhat, linux

Copy Edit Changes:
- Home Page, when logged in as TTA member - Recently closed solictations mirror open solicitations currently
  - Fake text or Add a solicitation that is closed to show the purpose of the region but isn't mirroring the open soliciations
- Scientific Justification - yellow instruction box should read:
  - This region can be customized to contain instructions for the proposers. An example dialog is ".pdf only; font size no less than 11pt; no more than 4 pages (including figures, tables, and references). Maximum file size: 16 MB
    The science review panel members are instructed to reduce the score of any proposal that does not abide by these constraints."
- New Allocation Request- yellow instruction box should read:
  - This region can be customized to contain instructions for the proposers. An example dialog is "A proposal requesting resources from multiple facilities requires at least one Allocation Request per Facility. See the online guide for suggestions and guidelines on how multiple Allocation Requests per Facility can convey your top priority concerning the requested resources."
Proposals Tab
- When logged in as TTA member, I do not have "My" proposals. I understand the profiles are not linked. Noting to remember to put into document to not expect that behavior.

Allie QA v0.1.1 on prod

STT-1001 updated how time is distributed in the scan list because there is no concept yet of a repeat count on the OS.
- For the GBT, all of the Requested Time is held in 1 scan/subscan. The default setup time is 6 s. This is the general behavior I see.
  - When I put in a really large BW and large RMS, the displayed time in the scan list and the Time per Science Target Tab show 0s. This is because the real time is quite small I believe. This should either default to a minimum of some value (TBD) or display the time, even if it is small
  - Has the Calibrate Pointing and Calibrate Focus Target always been called "0th Subscan Target?". The source should the same as the first Science Target (STT-612)
- For the VLA, we are showcasing a simple interleaving of the phase calibrator. However, we have limited the number of scans generated per Science Target because the scan list was getting unwieldily without the repeat count concept.
  - The behavior is
    - If the Requested Time is less than 90s, all of the time is held in a single scan/subscan.
    - If the Requested Time is > 90s, then three scans are created and the time is split evenly between them.
  - Similar to the GBT case, if the time is very small, the acquisition time on a subscan shows as 0.
  - The default setup time appears to be 1m 40s - not sure why it is different than the GBT case.
  - The Requested Time seems to match the sensitivity calculators, though the GBT is using bandwidth instead of the spectral res to calculate time.
  - The behavior is not as I expect:
    - Either the setup time is being factored into the decision to create 1 or 3 scans or three scans are always created regardless of the requested time.
    - For example, a source has a requested time of < 90s, so I would expect 1 scan in the Observation Spec. However, 3 scans are made instead, each with a very small amount of time and 1m40s of setup time. I have only tried a few iterations but I'm having trouble getting just 1 scan to be created instead of three, so something is up.

Allie (Firefox, redhat)

Note! 20D Solicitation only has specific hardware for the facilities.

VLA has Ka- and L-band. GBT has P- and K-band.

Landing page
- Can edit a message of the day as a ttamember and save it. The save feature doesn't give useful feedback: it would be nice if a system message were displayed and the button changed somehow to reflect that a successful save had occurred
  - Logging in as a different non ttamember does show the message I wanted to save.
For the iteration that goes in front of the TTA group, it would be good to remove the notification on the review tab, since that doesn't go anywhere right now.
If I log out from a profile, it doesn't redirect anywhere. It should probably redirect to the landing page. It just sat and tried to load the proposals, which is the page I was at when I hit the log out button.
Solicitation Tab should not be available for non TTAmember or it should be different as non ttamembers are not modifying the solicitation.
Proposal with a realistic looking solicitation
- Basic Information works as expected.
- Scientific Justification
  - Tried to upload a 3.1 MB pdf. Got error messages of " A backend error occurred. Request Entity too large at api/proposal/6/sciencetific_justification" and "http failure response for https://tta-test.nrao.edu/api/proposals/6/scientific_justification:413 request entity too large" but then I also got the message that says "file uploaded" and I can see the file in the scientific justification view. If I exit the proposal and load it up back, the Scientific justification does not persist.
  - The view button works
  - The delete button does not actually delete it. It also gives an error of "http failure response for https://tta-test.nrao.edu/api/proposals/6/scientific_justification: 401 unauthorized"
  - Replace the file does work but I get the same errors as above. this file is 2.2 MB in size.
  - I uploaded a png just to see if it would allow me to do so. It does allow a png to be uploaded.
- Allocation Request
  - Selected GBT and GBT Spectral Line; reloaded after creating the allocation request to try to avoid the error discussed on Tuesday.
    - Maybe I didn't hit it in the right order, as I was not able to save the Field Source I created. I had to refresh first and then I could reenter the field source information and save.
  - I could not delete the only Capability Request in the Allocation Request.
    - I got the error "Could not remove Request from Proposal"
  - Field Source
    - Mostly works as expected except there are red boxes, indicating problems, around negative numbers like for radial velocity, declination.
    - The hexadecimal view of the RA gives the minor error of "only enter numbers" when the hour, minutes, seconds are used to differentiate the inputs. It saves despite this error though.
    - The precision on the conversion looks off.
    - RA should only have options of Degree & HMS
    - Dec should only have options of Degree & DMS
    - Parallax should only have degree, arcmin, arcsec
    - The units on the Flux Density fields are should not be per beam if they are actually meant to be flux densities and not intensities.
      - It would be nice to other Jy as an option for input to these fields too
    - FOV Shape
      - It's really nice that the field for FOV in RA/ FOV in Dec will change with the coordinate system.
      - The units here should only have degree, arcmin, arcsec and we need to be clear if we really do mean arcmin and not minutes, even for the RA field.
    - Proper Motion
      - The proper motion titles also change with the coordinate system. We need to be very clear about this I think or restrict this ability because proper motion in Galactic is not equal to that in RA. There's a transformation between them I do not think we want to be responsible for it. Did we decide if we were responsible for coordinate transformations in general? I think ALMA puts that on the observe and I recall that's what we decided.
    - I don't think it is useful to have the up and down arrows to change the numbers for any fields here because the precision on that function is an issue and will change between fields. Plus, right now you can adjust it to be a negative number for fields like FOV, which should never be allowed to be negative.
    - There should be a better error message if a negative number has been entered into a field that cannot be negative instead of the current error, which says "only enter numbers".
    - It would be nice if there was a mass select or delete on the field sources.
    - Importing field sources somewhat works
      - The import widget is nice and does a good job at assigning the columns
      - The RA and DEC entries were in hexadecimal format and did not propagate to the fields properly at import.
      - The Proper Motion, parallax values in the file are 0 and the widget shows no values for them, so it is unsurprising that there are no values in the Field Source entries. However, 0 is a valid entry.
      - I appreciate that on a new CR, there isn't a "dummy" field source that is created right away and I need to delete, particularly after the import. That being said, I would think I would be able to delete all the Field Sources to start anew without having to delete the CR.
      - The units on the import file are not matched to the fields. I imported in Jy and of course, the field for continuum flux density is microJy. This is also a problem in other fields.
      - Importing Galactic Coordinates seem to work correctly.
      - Import of different field of views work
      - Uncertainty in Ra and Dec fields should be removed from the import list
      - I suspect coordinate epoch should also be removed from the list.
      - Importing seems to handle mixed coordinate systems well.
  - Spectral Specifications
    - It would be nice if it were possible to enter in center frequencies with units of MHz too; likewise, the bandwidth in and resolution could be entered in as Hz, MHz, GHz
    - These fields are highlighted in red when a negative number is entered, which is good as they aren't allowed to be negative. It would be helpful if a message were also displayed or the bang that appears with the red highlighting had a hover over tool tip to explain the error.
      - Despite having negative numbers here, I can still save. That isn't a good behavior.
    - Importing a spectral spec works as expected.
  - Performance
    - Performance should really be Performance Parameters, which is what it is called in the documentation and consistent with how we call Calibration Parameters.
    - The Units on Angular Resolution should be deg, arcmin, arcsec
    - It would be nice if the rms sensitivity also had Jy/beam or mJy/beam options
  - Advanced
    - There should be units on Angular Resolution and RMS Sensitivity here
    - Eventually it would be nice to have a tool tip explaining what the eye is, as it may not be clear right away. Also, it isn't centered under the word observe.
    - The filters aren't filtering the list view; partially works for the 20D solicitation
      - What do the question marks in the filter view mean?
        I think it is trying to fill the position but cannot do so here. In the OS, it has the position of the source in this area of the widget.
      - the filters only work if i select a FS and SS, so I can't just select all of a SS or all of the FS.
    - After modifying in the Advanced view, I can save.
  - First pass at generating OS (Sam says realistic looking proposal is broken)
    - with a seemingly acceptable proposal gave an error of "could not find of generate observation specification"
    - STL is not available. has system error of "a backend error occurred. internal server error at api/science_target_list/5". I tried refreshing and still was not able to view it or the OS
  - Science Target List
    - Should only be viewable to a TTA member
  - Future testing thoughts:
    - Future question for testing: if the Obs Strategy is going to try to merge FS+SS that are similar, what happens when two entries with the same coordinates have other attributes that are different like FOV, peak Flux Density, line width?
  - General:
    - I caused the system to hang after uploading a spectral spec and filling in performance parameters. The FS entries weren't all correct so I refreshed and tried again. I fixed the field sources entries, didn't hit save, went to SS and saw the system was hanging again. When I went back to FS, it hadn't persisted the parallax field but did persist the proper motion fields.
      - Despite refreshing, the system still continued to hang on a save.
      - I deleted the allocation request and begin a new. I clicked to add a CR and got the system error "a backend error occurred. internal server error at api/capability_requests" then quickly followed by "Could not create a new Allocation Request"
      - This proposal seems to be stale now and I cannot add allocation requests to it anymore. Even when I back out and come back to the proposal, it will not let me add AR.
      - I was uploading and deleting a lot of Field Sources before this happened. Maybe it didn't like that?
      - I made a new proposal and still cannot seem to make AR. I can upload Sci Just though. I had to logout of the user and log in again.
    - At some point when I was editing FS, the CR had a banner that said Changes Pending, which I expected. But then the Allocation Request also got a banner with Changes Pending that didn't go away until I hit the save button associated with the Allocation Request. Typically, I only see a banner for the CR when I am editing FS/SS/etc and not one for the Allocation Request. I have no idea how I triggered it.
    - I am not convinced that Proper Motion and Parallax fields are persisting properly. There is no predictable behavior for when the fields are turned to null but it happens frequently, despite not being given values of 0.
GBT proposal with a 20D solicitation
- Sci Justification has similar errors
- Allocation Requests
  - So far all issues I found in the realistic-looking solicitation apply here
  - Calibration parameters
    - Polarization Calibration is missing its button. The text is still here but there is no button.
  - I still cannot generate an OS or STL – it is because I was requesting SS that aren't available to the Solicitation. They did say this, I just didn't intake it apparently.
VLA proposal with 20D Solicitation
- Sci Justification has similar errors
- Allocation Requests
  - Field Source
    - - Importing Sources
    - Radial Velocity was imported NaN when I mistakenly assigned the wrong column to it. It tried to give is a string instead of a number. So that rather works intuitively.
  - Spectral Spec
    - Import works
      - Units on spectral resolution and bandwidth should be defaulted to MHz or at least the option of changing to that. Will we be responsible for the transformation? I think that's simple enough.
  - Performance Parameters
    - There is not field entry for Angular Resolution and there should be.
  - Calibration Parameters
    - Polarization Calibration is missing its button here too.
  - Advanced
    - Angular Resolution doesn't show up as an option to be changed in this view, nor is there a display for it.
    - The upload here works as I expect. Though I added 2 "ringer" sources and it did not give the prompt that it couldn't match them to anything. It did bring that up for two sources that I had deleted.
  - Observation Specification
    - If I request the right bands (Ka-, L-band) then this works
    - Filters
      - Filtering doesn't work properly in all the tabs. I think it works correctly in the Science Targets and Observing Target tab but not in the scan tab.
      - I think Target should be changed to Source in the filter
      - The "Bands" filter reflect the Hardware Configurations the system decided; should the name be the system's name for the band or how the user's SS was mapped to the band?
        Otherwise, there is no inclusion of the user's name for the SS anywhere in the OS.
      - Instead of, or in addition to, the position in the filter, it might be more useful to have the pointing pattern that the system is going to use. For example, if the user enters a FS in the CR that is clearly meant to be a mosaic, that information would be more useful than just the position. That would align with our definition of a Source, which has a name, a nominal position, pointing pattern.
      - The positions attached to the filter cards need attention in their precision. Also, they directly reflect the FS position so they are a mix of coordinate systems but it doesn't actually specify it. They should also have units.
    - It created 2 OBs split in frequency. I didn't think it could, or should, do that yet.
    - Total Time on Observing Targets is reporting NaN s.
    - Adding to the OS
      - I can add a scan and assign the new FS to it. This very different but i think I get it and it works as expected
        The exception in the setup time. The user would not specify this because it depends on the slew. We don't want live updates on this though I think. Instead there should be a way to validate to get the updated slew times. Maybe as soon as an edit occurs, any time estimate except the acquisition time and the total time on science targets should be voided until the system is called? Is that a behavior we're going to have is the first question I suppose.
      - The STL doesn't reflect the addition of the ringer, which is consistent with the behavior I expect. The STL is not to be regenerated from the OS.
      - My added target did not persist in the OS when I moved away from the OS.
      - I cannot add a SS
      - Once I modify the OS, it should change the status on the OS from system generated. It should be more evident that this is no longer a purely system generated OS.
        Toggling off the OS page should also warn me that the CR is out of sync now with the OS.
        The manual edits to the OS should persist.
        There should be a warning in the CR if they are out of sync that I will rewrite the OS.
        There should be a button that clearly indicates I am generating an OS or something. Otherwise, how do I force a new OS to be generated from the CR? It cannot be just toggling back and forth between the OS and CR tabs, as I may want to do that without overwriting the edits I made to the OS.
    - The coordinate transformations are not correct in the OS: the conversion between Equatorial Coordinate System (RA,DEC) and Galactic coordinate is not correct for example. The RA coordinates of the calibrators do not match the JIRA ticket. Something went wrong there.

Dana (Firefox, fedora)

User: Jane Doe. Solicitation: 20D. Proposal: Direct Measurement of the Expansion of UCHII Regions.

Allocation Request 1 (Facility Real VLA)
- We should probably change Facility "Real VLA" to "VLA"
- Capability Request
  - We should probably change "Real VLA Continuum" to "VLA Continuum".
  - Field Sources: Keyword names have changed but that is okay. Epoch can be input via file but is not displayed.
  - Spectral Specifications: Looks okay.
  - Performance: No textbox is present to enter data for Angular Resolution.
  - Calibration Parameters: No yes/no switch for Polarization Calibration.
  - When I click "Save" I get the following message: A backend error occurred. 'Not Found' at 'api/capability_requests/64. I get spinning icon. Have to go to Home and then back to Proposals. Started from scratch and was able to save the Capability Request. Still had same issues above. Created another Capability Request and had to go through the same steps.
  - Tried to change the Capability Request name. Ran into the bug Reid highlighted at the Sprint Review. Go to home and back and you can see the new name.
- Observation Specification.
  - Two Observation Specifications are created. One for each Capability Request. Looks okay.
Allocation Request 2 (Facility GBT)
- Capability Request
  - Field Sources: okay. Now we see "Peak Line Flux Density" and "Line Width" in the file import.
  - Spectral Specifications: Looks okay.
  - Calibration Parameters: No yes/no switch for Polarization Calibration.
  - Performance: okay.
  - Note that the tab order is different between the VLA and GBT (Calibration Parameters and Performance are swapped).
- Observation Specification.
  - One Observation Specification is created. Looks okay. The calibration is done at Ka-band and not K-band.

Dana (Firefox, fedora)

General
- The message of the day feature seemed to work as advertised. Overall, I did not see any significant lags. I then created a new proposal as SallyScientist called "The WISE Extension of the HRDS".
Basic Information.
- Seemed to work okay.
Scientific Justification
- When importing the sj PDF (2.8 MB) I get the following error message: "A backend error occurred. 'Request Entity Too Large' at 'api/proposals/37/scientific_justification". I was able to import a smaller sj PDF (0.445 MB).
Allocation Request
- Capability Request
  - Setup 200 field sources and 1 spectral spec. When saving I got the following error message: "A backend error occurred. 'Request Entity Too Large' at 'api/allocation_requests/68". When I reduced this to 50 field sources the Allocation Request was saved.
- Observation Specification
  - In general this looked okay. I could see the hardware and OI names, etc. Need to decide better names for all of this but okay. But I noticed that there were only 51 targets. I expected the 50 science targets plus 3C286 and test A for a total of 52. Field source 12 was missing (HII0012). Closer inspection revealed that since I did not have sufficient precision in my input file for the RA/Dec that field source HII0011 and HII0012 had the same coordinates. A bit surprised that the software would recognize this fact and decide not to observe HII0012. Probably best to not do this but warn the user that two field sources have the same coordinates.

Allie (Firefox,redhat)

General
- Toggling between basic information and allocation request has a lag of about 1~2 seconds before the information is shown. It almost looks like a blank proposal at first before it loads. I have 50 FS and 2 SS and I generated the OS before trying to toggle between them.
- (Feature) there should be a warning when switching between these views if the input data isn't saved.
- Message of the day is editable, saving, and persisting. There isn't an indication that it is saved or edited though when a ttamember.
Allocation Request
- Capability Request
  - Import of FS and SS mostly works as expected except when the value is 0, then nothing is populated into the FS.
  - (Feature) there should be units attached to the TOM inputs.
  - (Feature) it would be nice to have an easier way to delete FSs en mass.
- STL
  - The name of the SS is not propagating to the STL. Instead only the mapped Hardware Configuration name is shown.
- Observation Specification
  - Second Dana's comment.
  - The name of the SS isn't propagating to here either.

Dana (Firefox, fedora)

Allocation Requests
- Overall the layout is better organized and therefore easier to navigate.
Capability Requests
- Some of the functionality here is a bit different than for Allocation Requests. For example, (1) the way to list the different Allocation Requests or Capability Requests; and (2) the functionality to rename the Allocation Requests and Capability Requests. I prefer consistent functionality but understand there are trade-offs.
Target Overrides
- I think the functionality of this tab should be incorporated into the Capability Request tab; effectively we are fine tuning the Capability Request. Need to make the flow more clear; e.g., user has to intuitively know that they have to mash the Generate Observation Specification button.
- The labels here are numerical (1, 2, etc.) but under Capability Request they have names so the mapping is not clear.
Observations Specifications
- Not sure why the calibration scans are at Ka-band, whereas the science targets are at C-band and L-band. Maybe legacy stuff from the VLA?
- Not clear to me we want the scan and subscan intents to be so prominent in the display. I tend to want to locate the source name and found this a bit hidden at first. Need to think about this since the intents are important and I may just be biased here from past experience.
- The subscan intents are a bit confusing to me but are implemented as described (STT-441). Need to discuss this with the product owners.
- Not clear we should include the test source as a science target (e.g., as displayed under Total Time on Science Targets). But again, this is implemented as described (STT-441).
- I suspect we will eventually want the observing procedure, what I think we are calling the pointing pattern, displayed. But we have not gotten to this yet. Anyhow, just something to think about vis-a-vis the real-estate as the displays are getting crowded.
- It would be useful to be able to collapse each Observation Specification; again similar functionality that exists for Allocation Requests and Capability Requests.

Allie (Firefox, redhat)

General
- If a CR has generated an Observation Specification and then I delete the CR, the observation specification (TOM+STL) are still available. There should also be a warning that you are deleting the CR, which will modify the OS. Generating a new CR then overwrites the previous OS, I think.
- I think 50 FS and 1 SS has caused enough of a load on the system that the navigation is noticeably slowed down.
- For science side - I think it would be good to have a tooltip that has more detail about the scans. For example, we thought the OS was wrong because a calibrate flux scan had two on_source subscans. If it were a OnOFF OI, then we would have on_source/off_source. But this is a GBT Nod OI, where both subscans are on_source. You wouldn't be able to tell that though from the scan list. To have transparency in the scan list creation, because the user doesn't see the algorithm work, we need more information on the OS. That way, the user knows where to refer to in the algorithm document.
Capability Request
- When I first open the CR, it has an empty FS and SS in the CR. When I upload a file, I keep forgetting I need to delete that first entry. Not deleting the first (and empty) entry causes an error and my inputs are wiped out.
- Is there a way for persisting the entries even if an error occurs on the save?
- I think the Calibration Parameters should have defaults. Maybe the first entry, instead of being empty could have a working example filled in?
- Field Source Parameters in the GBT capability are not persisting even after a save. I thought they should in the GBT case.
Observation Specification
- I recreated the 50 Megamaser's usecase as a CR via upload. I expected the partitioning function to partition the 50 FS into 2 OS's. It does indeed do this. It isn't obvious when multiple OS are created though, as they are down at the bottom (future task to revisit this).
- The RA for the calibrators is a decimal hour but the RA for the Science Targets is in Degrees. These should have the same units of degrees. Even worse! the same calibrator (e.g., 3C286) has decimal hours in the calibrate flux scan but decimal degrees in other scans.
- The peak scan is there but is called calibrate pointing. This is a discussion for scan intents with GBT.
- The scans numbers are showing an incorrect previous state, even when I have not moved scans around. I think I triggered it by filtering by intent. All the previous states say "1".
- Band and Target Filtering doesn't seem to work. Filtering by intent almost works but it thinks the science targets are calibrate_pointing scans and observe_target scans and vice versa.
- I believe the total overhead calculation is correct.
  - The Setup Time should eventually have the Slew Time +Hardware Overhead Configuration
- I don't quite understand why Ka band is on the calibrators when the usecase hard coded K. The uploaded file asked K and the Science Targets have K instead.
- An Undo button would be nice. Particularly when deleting scans.

Live notes from Sprint Review

Bugs:
- Numbering on sorting in Obs Spec for Scans
- Some Calibration Parameters are not propagating to ObsSpec STT-729 - Getting issue details... STATUS
- Firefox doesn't display the SciJust quite right STT-721 - Getting issue details... STATUS
VLA and GBT should have similar flows
Disabled making new Targets in the Obs Spec tab for now.
Can make subscans and filter on them.
Will create drop down menus for the subscan intents and similar items STT-725 - Getting issue details... STATUS .
Currently VLA calibration strategy service looks like the GBT calibration strategy service for now because VLA cal plan service needs updating to the level of GBT.
Cannot delete field sources/ spec spec if it is the only entry.
Saving a bad capability request no longer breaks everything. It can be updated now and you do not have to start over completely.

Allie (Firefox, redhat)

The Field source input for RA in HMS should not be h ' '' but h m s, as min != arcmin and sec != arcsec

Allie (Firefox,redhat

Expectations
- A realistic-looking solicitation can have Real VLA or GBT proposals.
- It should be possible to upload a config file for Solicitations, Fields Sources, and Spectral Specs
- There should be minimal differences between the CR→ TOM→ STL→ ObsSpec between VLA and GBT now
- Unit conversions for angles should work but coordinate conversions do not (and perhaps are never expected to)
- I should be able to deleted FS and SS in a CR without deleting the whole CR
- All Field Source parameters are on display because the superset was implemented but not the masking based on capability
- Entering in Long/Lat is finicky and under review STT-714 - Getting issue details... STATUS
Solicitation
- System is hanging when i am trying to upload the supplied json file (but with a new name)
Capability Requests (JaneDoe Sprint30 Proposal1)
- VLA Continuum
  - Something made the system hang after I entered in one field source and hit save Allocation Request. I had yet to enter in Spectral Spec, so maybe that's the problem? I would like some type of confirmation that it's saving my progress regularly or on demand so I don't enter 100 field sources and then lose it all.
  - All but the coordinates and name are being cleared from the FS entry. The coordinate system is also being reset back to ICRS it seems.
  - Sometimes the TOM is automatically adding back a source that I am trying to uncheck the Observe button for. Sometimes the TOM won't let me add a source back in. The system is hanging somewhere.
  - If the input is ICRS, degrees
    - The TOM is displaying in DMS for both long/lat coordinates
    - The STL is displaying hourangle (Decimal)/degree
    - The OS is displaying HMS/DMS
    - The conversions appear to be correct
    - Declination doesn't like a negative number
    - RA shouldn't allow a negative number.
  - Editing the Sources in the OS
    - Only the name is propagated to the fields in this edit widget
    - Editing the fields seems to collapse the field entry such that I can't see what I put in
    - Whatever format I enter in the edit menu for the coordinates of the field source, the OS directly reflects that i.e., there are now dissimilar display units in the OS.
  - The filtering appears to work in the OS as expected
  - The movement of the scans appears to work (with mouse, with select and move button
  - The ability to add a scan works until I try to edit it and save the edits.
  - Editing the OS directly causes a backend error occurred. ;internal server error' at 'api/observation_specifications'. System seems to hang when I try to save an edited OS
  - I can delete field sources and spectral specs, though the interaction point is completely different than how to delete a CR/allocation request
  - The upload of FS and SS appears to work
    - FS clears all fields when after save except for name and coordinates.
    - If the first FS or SS is empty, it does not override it and leaves an empty FS/SS in the list.
  - STL doesn't always generate properly from TOM. The OS seems to reflect the STL.
  - If duplicate SS are entered/uploaded to a CR, the TOM display duplicate entries. It's hard to tell if the STL would also do this because it doesn't always generate properly anyway.
- GBT SL
  - The FS and SS entries are not deleted when I navigate around after saving, as they are in the VLA Continuum. Why is this behavior so different between the two CR?
  - Performance has angular resolution here; VLA doesn't? FS has a superset but SS/PP/CP aren't yet a superset perhaps?
  - Not all of the FS are propagating to the STL
  - Something seems to be weird about the requested time calculation. The Display shows 19h19h5m50s so I'm not quite sure how to interpret that.

Dana (Firefox, Fedora)

Solicitation
- I was able to import a solicitation. Not much one can do at this stage but I was able to change the Solicitation name, for example, and this worked.
Allocation Request
- I would move "Allocation Request Name" above the tabs (Capabilities, Target Overrides, Observation Specification, Science Target List).
- When trying to create a second Allocation Request I got the following error: "Could not find or generate the requested item".
- Capabilities
  - Entering coordinates in HMS format, for example, is a bit funky as discussed at the sprint review.
  - Entering in zero (e.g., parallax) does not persist.
  - Importing a file worked okay for both Field Sources and Spectral Specs.
  - I was able to delete a Capability, Field Source, and Spectral Spec.
- Target Overrides
  - I had 22 field sources and 2 spectral specs. I altered the sensitivity for one row (first field source/spectral spec). In the observations specification, however, all of the scans that included the spectral spec were altered. Also I reduced the sensitivity by a factor of 2 and was therefore expecting the integration time increase by a factor of 4, but the time increased by a factor of ~20. ***N.B., I may not have hit the save button.***
  - I tried this again. Simple case with one field source and one spectral spec. Here is the procedure:
    1. Target Overrides tab: modified the rms sensitivity from 500 to 1000.
    2. Target Overrides tab: Clicked "Save" button.
    3. Target Overrides tab: Clicked "Generate Observation Specification" button.
    4. Observation Specification tab: view duration. I expected the time to decrease by a factor of four. The duration went from 11m34s to 2m58s. Not quite a factor of four.
    5. Science Target List tab: The time on source, presumably in seconds is not quite the same as being displayed in the Observation Specification tab. For example, 171.98560615411375 seconds is 2m51.99s. But the duration here did change by exactly a factor of 4 (from 687.942424616455 to 171.98560615411375) .
  - I used the exact same procedure as above except on a more complex setup: 22 field sources and 2 spectra specs. I modified the rms sensitivity from 500 to 1000 for only one field source/spectral spec. Indeed, on the Observation Specification tab and the Science Target List tab only the modified field source/spectral spec duration changed. Had the same issue with the slight difference in time as noted above.
- Observation Specification
  - Not sure why the calibrator is at X-band when the target is L-band.
- Science Target List
  - Using the VLA hardwired values but I think this is TBD. The coordinates were not converted correctly from front-end to back-end. Started in Galactic but the same numbers are listed as RA/Dec.

Allie: (Firefox, redhat)

My expectations are
- A realistic-looking solicitation can have a Real VLA or GBT proposal. The test solicitation is no good for testing?
- In a Real VLA proposal, I can see the TOM, the ScienceTargetList, and the OS.
  - The capability request can update the TOM, the OS, and STL.
  - Updates to the TOM do not affect the OS.
  - Updates to the TOM should affect the STL.
  - I can edit the OS directly.
- In a GBT Spectral Line,
  - a more detailed capability request now exists
  - can save a capability request but there is no TOM/STL/OS generated yet.
Home page
- Clicking on "create proposal" on a solicitation directs to the new proposal page as expected. I have to then specify what solicitation I want again on this page. It would be nice if it auto filled this if I'm navigating from the solicitation on the home screen.
- delete the trailing quote+period on the Global Millimeter VLBI Array (GMVA)". line (sprint 24 comment)
Trying to edit an already created proposal
- Home → My Proposals Card, blue edit button once I've found the proposal → edit mode activated
  - Difficulty in finding proposal but easy once I do
- Home → Open Solicitations Card → View Proposals button → click my proposal card → doesn't take me to the proposal. it just takes me to a list view of all the proposals and my proposal is expanded into a new card. The expanded card as the grey edit button → edit mode activated
  - Many screens and scrolling required. The edit button is subtle here.
  - In a previous version, the expanded card would show up next to a list of all the filtered or unfiltered proposals. It tries to do that briefly but then gets shunted to the bottom of the page in my browser.
- Home → My Proposals Card → View All Proposals Link → click my proposal card → doesn't take me to the proposal. it just takes me to a list view of all the proposals and my proposal is expanded into a new card. The expanded card as the grey edit button → edit mode activated
  - Same issues as previous path.
Capability Request for a realistic looking solicitation
- Specifications
  - The + button for field source almost looks like it is for the spectral spec instead of adding a field source. Some space between the two might help. Same is true for the + for spectral spec and performance
- Spectral Spec
  - The units of bandwidth and spectral resolution are wrong
- Field Source
  - Trying to specify negative values for FOV, Parallax, etc does throw an error once I save.
  - A + in the radial velocity also throws the error "this.answer is null"
  - Adding a new field source but not filling it in throws the same error.
    - How do I delete a field source or a spectral spec?
  - When I collapse the capability request and expand it later, there is a truncation of the wording on any of the check boxes (e.g., coordinate system, epoch) that are checked.
  - I can't save with the null errors and so my changes don't persist if I collapse the capability but the checked boxes do persist? This is expected?
- Unclear what delete button deletes what. Which one deletes the capability request vs the entire allocation request when I have them expanded?
- In a GBT proposal for TommyttaMember, I've filled in all the fields; it is returning a null error but not highlighting any of the fields. I did not have this experience when I was in the SallyScientist proposal.
  - I tried a new proposal and it worked this time. I'm not sure why it didn't work before. I was trying to see what would break it at first and I got the null. I changed it all to "good" inputs and was still getting the null error. I fresh allocation request rectified this.
- VLA Capability
  - In capabilities tab, if I hit save, I believe that updates the TOM, ScienceTargetList.
  - In the Target overrides matrix, do I need to hit save to update the override or does it do it automatically? - I think it's the save button but at first I thought it was the save button from the capability request.
  - I was unsure about how these are saved/updated, so it might also confuse a user, leading them to update or not update inadvertently.
  - When is the ScienceTargetList generated/updated - only when I hit save? when I edit the TOM?
    - No system message is generated when I hit save on the TOM.
    - My edits to the TOM do not seem to be propagating to the ScienceTargetList. E.g., deselecting a source or changing the RMS sensitivity.
  - Is the band name that I specify in the capability request only in the TOM?
    - Should it eventually be in the ScienceTargetList and OS?
  - The source name isn't in the ScienceTargetList. I think it should be.
  - OS
    - When I add a scan, how does it decide how to populate the data? It seems like it's just the first ScienceTarget being filled in and being put at the bottom.
    - It would be nice to highlight this scan as being a change pending, as the scan lists can get really long and it might not be clear that this was the scan added.

Dana: (Firefox, Linux)

Solicitations
- I tried to load my own solicitation (gbtSC.json) but got the following error: "A backend error occurred. 'Bad Request' at 'api/solicitations/configure 5/6/22, 3:11:23 PM". I then copied "a realistic-looking solicitation" and changed only the name (real2.json) and got the same error message. The system seemed to hang (got the rotating circular arrows).
Allocation Request
- Capabilities
  - I tried to create a GBT Spectral Line Capability Request. I was able to fill out all of the parameters (two field sources, one spectral spec, performance parameters) but when I clicked saved I got the following error: "A backend error occurred. 'Internal Server Error' at 'api/allocation_requests/21 5/6/22, 5:23:23 PM". The only thing I noticed is a red highlight around one of the Declination textboxes that had a negative value (I recall Sam said this was a known issue but should be okay to save to the database). Again the system seemed to hang. I had to leave the Allocation Request tab and come back. Nothing was saved.

Allie: (Firefox, redhat)

Allocation Requests
- Creating a second Allocation Request works. At some point though, the ordering of the Allocation Request tabs change. It's happened a couple of times where Allocation Request and Allocation Request 2 will flip their order on the top bar. Spooky. I think it's putting whatever tab I'm currently working on first instead of just leaving the order alone.
- Capability Request (the tab is called Capability though?)
  - When the specification first loads, I can see all the fields but if I click on a particular parameter, it gives a filtered view. Performance doesn't currently have more fields, so I wasn't sure what to do there. It was a bit unclear how to navigate the RMSSentitivty/performance/spatial/spectral filters from there then. I think you can hit enter, which brings up the macro list of parameters (or cycles through the parameters) or you can click again on a parameter to return to the macro list.
  - The save button does save but it also redirects to the TOM right away, regardless if I was done entering in all the fields. For example, I put in one field source and no spectral spec, and it redirected me. As someone who hits the save button as a soothing mechanism/ thought-clearing instinct, this is a bit disruptive. Happily the information in the parameters persists as I navigate around the capability tab. They do not propagate to the observation specification unless I hit the save button.
    - If I enter a parameter in the Capability, go to the Observation Specification, and back without hitting save, the newly entered parameter does persist in the Capability even though I did not save it. I think that's a good thing.
  - the spectral specification
    - the Center frequency field has a helpful tip suggesting I enter in an RA. Bandwidth similarly suggests that a Declination is needed.
  - Should the side bar instead be named performance, calibration, field source, spectral (spec)? RMS is a performance parameter. The other performance parameters are missing.
  - The calibration parameters are missing.
  - (bookkeeping) the Advance Button still exists
  - I can delete a Capability Request. It seemingly still exists in the Observation Specification though and I'm not sure how to get rid of it.
  - If I act like I'm going to delete a Capability Request but then hit cancel when it prompts me to delete it, sometimes a weird error shows up at the top of the screen in red saying that that item can't be found. It's hard to replicate but I have seen it 3 ish times.
- Observation Specification
  - I think the filters are working as I expect.
  - If I hold down shift to try to multi select, it opens a new window of firefox instead. Crtl causes tabs with the title of "javascript:void(0)" to appeared in my browser. Maybe it's a linux problem?
  - Will there be a way to clear all filters?
  - I can Save the Observation Specification with my changes. It needs a big notice telling the user that the capability request is now invalid though.
  - I'm able to generate multiple Observation Specifications (see TOM comment). I don't have an OS with a lot of scans, but I think it has a nice layout.
    - Since there can be multiple Observation Specifications, should the name in the tab be "Observation Specification" still?
  - The name I put into the spectral spec doesn't seem to show up anywhere in the Observation Specification. It might be good to think more about why we have this field and its purpose, as the observation specification should probably display the actual names of the bands, as it currently does.
  - (bookkeeping) there are two save buttons: the one at the bottom of the observation spec and the one in the edit mode of a scan.
  - Adding a second Capability Request (and saving) did not immediately add it to the Observation Specification. I had to click around a bit and then it showed up finally. I'm having trouble replicating this behavior though.
  - I like that when I'm editing a Observation Specification, it says changing pending for that one and not all of them.
  - I can delete all the scans in an Observation Specification but I cannot delete the OS itself.
  - The column headings on the scan list are not lining up properly.
- TOM
  - Clicking the button generates a new Observation Specification in addition to the one(s) already in the Observation Specification tab. I know the TOM isn't user facing but thought I'd note it.
  - Once a Observation Specification exists, how do you update it from the Capability Request. Clicking the Generate Observation Specification button in this tab will create a second one that reflects the state of the capability request. (I think this is in Sprint 28: STT-682)

Dana (Firefox; Fedora):

Allocation Request
- Capabilities
  - I think RMSSensitivity should be under Performance.
  - I would add "Calibration" to the list (even if just a place holder now).
  - I would order these: Spatial, Spectral, Performance, and Calibration. This is more in line with how a scientist would think about the flow of information.
  - After creating a VLA Continuum Capability I tried to create a GBT Spectral Line Capability within the same Allocation Request. I should not be able to do this since an AR can only have one Facility. But I was able to do this initially until I saved the Capability Request and got an internal server error.
  - When I save a Capability I am sent to the Target Overrides tab which is a bit odd but okay for now.
- Target Override
  - Little confused by this tab but I think we discussed this at one of the meetings.
  - Each time I click the "Generate Observation Specification" Button I can see a new Observation Specification, even if I have not changed the Capability Request.
- Observation Specification
  - Overall this looks pretty good.
  - I could not find a way to delete an entire Observation Specification.

Dana:

Allocation Requests
- Not sure of the purpose of Target Overrides.
- Only one Field Source and one Spectral Spec is saved.
- Advanced button does not seem to do anything.

Jeff:

Why are there no Specifications under the VLA Continuum (is this a configuration issue for the solicitation or something else)?

Dana:

Home
- I can now see the Solicitations without logging in first.
Allocation Request
- When in edit mode, if I click the Allocation Request tab (on left) I see "Allocation Request +Add". My intuition was that I had to click the "+Add" to create an Allocation Request, but if I do this it creates a second Allocation Request. What I should have done was to click "Allocation Request" to start filling in the first one.
- Not sure if there was suppose to be any way to input information for the VLA Continuum Capability.
- I still cannot save an Allocation Request, but I can delete one.
- When in edit mode, if I cancel (click the "x" in the top right-hand corner), I am brought back to the view with the 2-D layout of cards. I would have expected to see the view with the 1-D column of cards on the left with the proposal that I just cancelled on the right.

Allie:

Home page
- delete the trailing quote+period on the Global Millimeter VLBI Array (GMVA)". line
- is it necessary to have two different create proposal buttons? For example, would the button next to the open solicitations automatically have that solicitation checked?
- How is the priority set for the list of proposals in "My Proposals"? The newest created proposal is not at the top of the list as I would expect.
- TonyattaMember and TommyttaMember have different home pages. Is this expected behavior because they have different profiles?
Editing a Proposal
- Allocation Request
  - When I add a Capability to an Allocation Request, the changes pending bar behaves as expected: the bar does appear until I make changes. It does not go away when I hit Save though. The save button doesn't appear to work. Maybe that isn't implemented yet.
  - When I make multiple Allocation Requests and then try to delete one, it sometimes deletes all of them instead. I'm having trouble consistently replicating this behavior but it did happen at least 4 times.
  - Is this expected behavior?
    - Create Allocation Request and Allocation Request 2
    - Delete Allocation Request
    - Add an Allocation Request makes a new allocation request with the name of "Allocation Request 2" such that now there are two Allocation Request 2s.
    - When adding more Allocation Requests (AR 3, AR4), the tabs reorder themselves as
      - AR3, AR4, AR2, AR2
  - Capabilities do not persist when switching between allocation requests (maybe the aforementioned save issue?).
  - Cannot rename the AR or the Capability
- Clicking between "Basic Information", "Scientific Justification", "Allocation Request" very briefly changes the wording at the top left from "Edit Proposal" to "New Proposal" and back again to "Edit Proposal".
- When clicking back to "Basic Information" from "Scientific Justification" or "Allocation Request", the check box with the "test solicitation" sometimes briefly displays the words "[object Object] " instead.

Dana:

Home Tab
- Looks better. Need to think what we really want here. If we list Open Solicitation maybe we should list Draft Proposals instead of My Proposals. That is, these are the things that I am currently working on. Then again, Submitted Proposals can be edited before the deadline and re-submitted for Semester Solicitations. So maybe only list proposals that can be modified.
Proposals Tab
- Added a bunch of proposals to see how this looks when viewing proposals (either in the 2-D layout of cards or the 1-D column of cards when viewing a selected proposal). I think this will work as long as we are able to use filters to keep the number of proposals down to a reasonable number.
- Basic Information. Cleaned up the "Changes Pending" feedback. Works well. Still cannot leave to another section without loosing my edits (if I do not click Save first), but okay.
- Scientific Justification. Known issues with persistence; otherwise okay.
- Allocation Request. Known issues with persistence; otherwise okay. Layout seems reasonable. This will probably evolve as we include details so we probably do not want to fine tune this at this stage. But since each Allocation Request has only one Facility we might want to include the Facility when showing the list of Allocation Requests.

Consensus Feedback

Really nice overall
Before the user is logged in the open solicitations are not shown. During the sprint review this was demonstrated to be a 401 error.
- STT-591 - Getting issue details... STATUS
Want to discuss the overall navigation (like the top w/ icons, lower ones are confusing)
- Try to isolate functional roles using UX
Consistent & Persistant Filtering
Changes pending is not working correctly. At least one of us didn't notice the changes pending notification.
- STT-593 - Getting issue details... STATUS
Note: Track OS and Browser
Note: Need to do the only authors can edit a proposal story at some point.
- STT-592 - Getting issue details... STATUS
Is delete supposed to work?
Edit button on detailed view took a while to find,

Jeff:
- For the solicitation I am not sure we want to display capabilities (there may be too many), I suspect we want to display the facilities for each solicitation though (maybe the capabilities as a redirect?)
- What is the purpose of having the proposals section under the home page, I agree with Dana that this is confusing.
- I think there is a question of if we want to be able to select the role we are logged in as?
- Filter should persist when going to a detail view.
Dana:

o Initial View
------------

- Overall the interface is very clean. Easy to read, easy to
navigate, and fast.

- Before login I cannot view the Solicitations.

- Maybe

"NRAO + GBO Telescope Time" --> "NRAO/GBO Telescope Time"
"Greenbank Observatory (GBT)" --> "Green Bank Telescope (GBT)"

and add:

"High Sensitivity Array (HSA)"
"Global Millimeter VLBI Array (GMVA)".

- The purpose of JWT at the top right is not clear. If I click
on it nothing happens.

o Login as SallyScientist
-----------------------

- Once I login I can view the Solicitations only after I reload the
page.

- On Home there are two buttons to create a proposal: one at the top
and the other under the "test solicitation". I was expecting the
latter to have already selected "test solicitation" once the proposal
was created.

- If I click on "View Past Awarded Proposals" I should only see those
proposals that were awarded time (no draft proposals). I realize
that this concept is probably not yet in the system.

- There are two ways to view Proposals. One is by clicking the
Proposal tab next to Home (where one can filter on the proposal), and
the other is by clicking the My Proposals tab next to Open
Solicitations. I can see the value of different displays of this
information but the functionality is a bit confusing. If I edit the
Proposal under My Proposal I am taken to the Proposal tab.

- Proposal View Mode

Maybe reduce the size of the left section that lists the proposals.

If I click on View under Scientific Justification I am placed back on
the Home page. I am not able to see the scientific justification
(which was already uploaded).

- Proposal Edit Mode

I cannot re-size the abstract window; seems like there is a little
widget for this but it does not work.

After I have clicked Save on the Basic Information page the there is a
temporary window that indicates the proposal is saved, but I still see
the blue bar at the top indicating "Changes Pending". This is
confusing since I have not made any changes yet.

If I edit the abstract on the Basic section and then move to the
scientific justification section without saving I loose the edit. It
would be useful to have some warning or indication of the edit status
and if information will be lost.

After I upload a scientific justification PDF, which works fine, if I
leave the proposal and come back I can no longer see (or can view) the
uploaded scientific justification. There is just a button "Select New
PDF".

o Login as TonyaTtamember
-----------------------

- Proposals Tab

Seems like the filter settings should persist. For example, if I select
SHOW->My, then go to the Home tab and back to the Proposal tab the filter
is set to SHOW->All.

What determines the placement of proposals cards?

Need to include a search to the filtering of proposals.

- Solicitation

Clicking on "Create a Solicitation" does not do anything.
Presumably not implemented yet.

If I click on "View Proposals" I was expect to see
only the proposals from the specified Solicitation but
all were listed.

- During the session multiple browser tabs were opened; not clear
when this happened and why.

Allie

This may not have real application but it might indicate an unwanted behavior
1. I login with JohnDoe and edit test proposaleeeeeee
2. While on that page, I login as Sally Scientist. I can now edit and save edits to this proposal. Even after a refresh
3. I can do this with any other log in.
4. The edits show up in test proposaleeeeeee when I login again as JohnDoe.
5. I can do the same to proposal My test proposal 2 W4 HMXB, which only has JohnDoe as an author
6. Sometimes I can see in the list of proposals test proposaleeeeeee in SallyScientists' list
7. Returning to item (b), if I refresh, I see SallyScientist's proposals listed but I can still edit JohnDoe's
  1. This image shows John Doe's proposal but logged in as sally without refreshing first
    1. prefresh_as_Sally
  2. This image shows the screen after the refresh
    1. postrefresh_as_sally
8. Finally, logging out leaves the information open (e.g., the edit proposal page) but I can no longer edit it, so that's good.
Again this may not be a practical issue, but I had multiple tabs open editing proposals as different users and it seemed to behavior well.
1. Having the same person logged in editing the same proposal in different tabs creates problems. If I save an edit in one tab and do not refresh in the other, what ever I save in the "other" tab will overwrite the first. A refresh shows the first tab's update. This is a fair behavior perhaps.
2. The same behavior happens when I am trying to edit the same proposal with two logged in accounts, which may be a problem. There is tandem editing in the current tool (to what ever degree it does or doesn't exhibit this problem).
Is it expected behavior that Tommy Ttamember and TonyaTtamember have different items in the "Review tab"? It looks like TonyaTtamember is a reviewer while Tommy Ttamember is admin?
It seems that there is a proposal listed as "My proposal" for Tommy Ttamember that has Tammy Ttamember as the primary author. Are these supposed to be the same person?
1. If not, is Tommy ttamember exercising admin-powers to edit/create a proposal for Tammy?
2. If Tommy ttamember has no intention of being on this proposal, should it show up under "my proposals"?
3. Can users create a proposal without being on it? That seems like a policy question, and I know the author portion has some work to do on it still.
I had the same experience as Dana with the abstract not saving upon navigation
1. Happily though, I can't seem to accidentally navigate backwards using the mac track pad short cut.
On the landing page once i log in as anyone, I find it a bit unsightly to see duplicate tabs for navigation at the top.
Hitting the Review tab takes me back to home, not a separate interface for reviews and not even to the review tab at the bottom.
I can't seem to delete a proposal.

===========

The second set of tabs on the home page were only intended to get some "quick start" areas there - likely actions a person wants to take e.g. working on the most proposals edited or viewing the responses numbers for recently closed solicitations. We do need to do some UX work to really flesh out what should be here, but for now the tabs were removed so they are less confusing.

Multiple tabs: local storage is used to save the logged in user's JWT (identifies who is logged in). Local storage in a browser is organized by domain name and stores simple key/value pairs. Having multiple tabs open in one browser and logging in as different people won't work so well because the domain name is the same, so whatever tab logs in last overwrites who is logged in for all tabs.

The "JWT" button: This is for developers, so it doesn't look like does anything for users and it will go away when we have "real" authentication.

Clicking the "create proposal" button on the home page next to an open solicitation is going to have that solicitation already selected when the creation form opens - but that isn't hooked up yet so it doesn't work. The assessment of what should happen was correct - it just isn't implemented yet. Perhaps we make that a story so it doesn't get lost. The same is true for clicking "view proposal" on a solicitation card - that is also not hooked up yet.

Switching between sections of proposal editing does lose the changes on that page without warning. We should make a story to address that.

the scientific justification pdf upload is set up in the UI, but isn't set up in the backend, so saving doesn't actually work right now. We have stories for this already.

Filtering of proposal cards is handled by the back end, so any search or sorting will need to happen there as well in case we need to introduce pagination (which we will at some point). We will need stories for this.

Filters do not persist, but should. This is all front end work and we should make a story for it.

Anyone with a role of TTAT member can see all proposals, but the "my" filter should still work to restrict what is shown. Because authorization is fake, we have a different list of users in the frontend than the backend, so sometimes things look funny. We can fix this or ignore it until we get to more default test data or real authorization.

Space shortcuts

Page tree

Consensus Feedback