OJS OCS OMP OHS

You are viewing the PKP Support Forum | PKP Home Wiki



Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Are you responsible for making OCS work -- installing, upgrading, migrating or troubleshooting? Do you think you've found a bug? Post in this forum.

Moderators: jmacgreg, michael, John

Forum rules
What to do if you have a technical problem with OCS:

1. Search the forum. You can do this from the Advanced Search Page or from our Google Custom Search, which will search the entire PKP site. If you are encountering an error, we especially recommend searching the forum for said error.

2. Check the FAQ to see if your question or error has already been resolved. Please note that this FAQ is OJS-centric, but most issues are applicable to both platforms.

3. Post a question, but please, only after trying the above two solutions. If it's a workflow or usability question you should probably post to the OCS Conference Support and Discussion subforum; if you have a development question, try the OCS Development subforum.

Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Postby sbellio » Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:58 am

Ocs version: 2.3.3-1
In the conference setup I've configured the conference with a two step submission; Abstract followed by proposal (2 rounds of review required; first for abstract, second for proposal).
"Post abstracts once the abstract review has been completed" is checked.
In the Review Process I've set the due date: "Allow reviewers until 2012-05-30 to review submissions". I changed the date into the MySql DB because ocs doesn't accept any date after 2011.
I've applied the two patches 5497 (Review Due Date mm/dd/yyyy set function not working) and 6506 (Review absolute due date always set to today).
Now when the track director assign a reviewer for the abstract the review due date is correct.
The problem appears when the track director receives the paper from the author. In the paper review step he found the same reviewer of the abstract step.
In this page the due date isn't correctly registered (print screen attached):
Request Underway Due Acknowledge
Mail Mail — Mail
Inside the mail that the track director can send to the reviewer the due date is correct (The review itself is due 2012-05-30.)

Many thanks for your attention
Stefano Bellio
Attachments
OcsBug1.png
OcsBug1.png (54.2 KiB) Viewed 2467 times
sbellio
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:53 am

Re: Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Postby jmacgreg » Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:15 pm

Hi Stefano,

Where exactly did you change the DB -- ie. in which table/column? That's probably not the best way to make the change; better to make the change in the code so that you get predictable results. I've filed this as a bug here; please feel free to CC yourself to that report for future results.

Cheers,
James
jmacgreg
 
Posts: 4190
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:50 am

Re: Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Postby sbellio » Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:29 am

Hi James,

jmacgreg wrote:Hi Stefano,

> Where exactly did you change the DB -- ie. in which table/column?
Table: sched_conf_settings
Column: numWeeksPerReviewAbsolute 2012-05-30 00:00:00 date

> That's probably not the best way to make the change; better to make the change in the code so that you get predictable results. I've filed this as a bug here; please feel free to CC
> yourself to that report for future results.

Many thanks James.
But, in my opinion, there is another bug (or is related to the first?). Is described in the print screen previously attached: it happens when the track director receives the paper from the author.
The Due Date for the review isn't filled with 2012-05-30
Isn't it?

Cheers,
James


Many regards
Stefano
sbellio
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:53 am

Re: Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Postby jmacgreg » Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:24 pm

Hi Stefano,

Could you try patching your system with the patch provided on the bug report and see if that fixes the problem of the due date assignment? Editing the database the way you have may have unpredictable results, as the code itself rather than the DB actually controls how some of those dates are set.

Cheers,
James
jmacgreg
 
Posts: 4190
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:50 am

Re: Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Postby sbellio » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:52 am

Hi James.
I've applied the 6888_2.diff patch.
Nothing has changed. I tried also to change the due date (without manually editing the DB) in order to correctly modify the date into the DB but the result is the same.
Please find attached some screenshots which describe the bug
Many regards
Stefano
Attachments
DueDateBug.pdf
(720.23 KiB) Downloaded 103 times
sbellio
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:53 am

Re: Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Postby michael » Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:16 am

Hi Stefano,

Thanks for testing this out and the detailed attachment. I'll try and reproduce this on a local install.

Cheers,
Michael
michael
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:09 pm

Re: Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Postby michael » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:45 pm

Hi Stefano,

Can you please apply the patch provided with this bug report and confirm whether that fixes the issue for you?

Thanks,
Michael
michael
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:09 pm

Re: Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Postby sbellio » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:46 am

Hi Michael,
issue fixed!
Many thanks and regards
Stefano
sbellio
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:53 am

Re: Review Due Date (bug 5497 and 6506)

Postby mendesrocha » Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:20 pm

Hello folks!

Maybe I discover a new issue related to bug 5497.

I had changed the date format in the config.inc.php to %d-%m-%Y and the review due date set in 3.2 setup is not working. Thereby, when I assign a review, due date is something like "02-07-2030" while intended is "30-07-2012" [in %d-%m-%Y ] or "2012-07-30" [in %Y-%m-%d]

I noticed if I changed it to the original %Y-%m-%d review due date works again (to 2012-07-30).
mendesrocha
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Brazil


Return to OCS Technical Support

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests