How do you send a [survey-link] that creates/links to a new instance of a repeating-instrument survey in REDCap?
ie imaging you have customers who should visit you on a regular basis. You have two instruments:
customer
visit [set as a Repeating Instrument + enabled as a Survey]
And you have an alert that regularly sends them a "Time for your next visit" email.
When I send an alert to a customer with [survey-link:visit] it will work the first time. The email will contain a unique URL for that customer's visit. But when the alert is sent a second time, person will open the URL and get a "Thank you for your interest, but you have already completed this survey."
I can manually (via the web admin) create a new instance of their Visit. But how should I do this automatically?
Thank you.
As of version 12.5 this is now supported using a smart variable [new-instance] which, when appended to a [survey-url] or [survey-link] smart variable, will target a new instance of the instrument if it is repeating. In the same release came ASI options around repeating instruments, which allow you to repeat an ASI every X minutes, hours or days, and each successive ASI instance points to the specific instance of the survey instrument. This is useful for daily surveys.
For your use case, [survey-link:visit][new-instance] will do what you want. Send it to them once and instruct them to fill it out as many times as needed, or send it however many times you need to.
====
Yes, this is a current limitation. It has been requested of the REDCap developers to add a smart variable [new-instance] that can be appended to a [survey-link] or other smart variable to instantiate a new instance of a repeating instrument, and they have responded positively.
Maybe the most appropriate workflow here would be for you or the project staff to manually create the visit instance, save it with a date, and have an alert that sends them an invitation to complete the visit details, or whatever you need them to do.
If you want the respondents to instantiate the visit themselves (i.e., make a booking rather than respond to a booking made on their behalf), the only workaround I have personally managed is to enable the survey queue and activate the repeating instrument on the basis of some logic (say, [consent] = 1), and in the survey settings of the repeating instrument, enable the option to Allow respondents to repeat the survey.
With these settings, the survey queue will allow the survey respondent to create a new instance of the instrument themselves by clicking the 'Take this survey again' button (button text configurable in survey settings). They can be emailed their link to the survey queue via an alert using the smart variable [survey-queue-link] or [survey-queue-url].
For extra credit, you could get fancy with the survey queue logic so that the instrument is disabled if, say, the last instance of the survey has today's date, using something like [consent] = 1 and datediff([visit_date][last-instance],"today","d",true) > 0. With this you could prevent them smashing it and adding multiple new visits at once.
Love the order ahead use-case: https://developer.squareup.com/docs/orders-api/order-ahead-usecase
Trying to figure out though. It says: "The customer kicks off the process by ordering one small coffee and one chocolate chip cookie using your order-ahead app. The customer chooses to pay using the app and pick their order up at CoffeeCool’s location."
Can the customer therefore "choose" to pay at pick-up? I'd still want the created order to be sent to the POS, so that the kitchen can start preparing it and the customer is not waiting.
Essentially this would be like replicating the "Save" rather than "Charge" option if this order were being manually made at the Square POS.
Currently only orders that have a charge associated to it will appear in the Square app and unfortunately the option to pay at time of pickup isn't currently available.
Yes You Can. You can set it up from the dashboard ( your computer) not directly from the POS. The issue is that it will prompt you to give a name to the order
I am learning to develop microservices using DDD, CQRS, and ES. It is HTTP RESTful service. The microservices is about online shop. There are several domains like products, orders, suppliers, customers, and so on. The domains built in separate services. How to do the validation if the command payload relates to other domains?
For example, here is the addOrderItemCommand payload in the order service (command-side).
{
"customerId": "CUST111",
"productId": "SKU222",
"orderId":"SO333"
}
How to validate the command above? How to know that the customer is really exists in database (query-side customer service) and still active? How to know that the product is exists in database and the status of the product is published? How to know whether the customer eligible to get the promo price from the related product?
Is it ok to call API directly (like point-to-point / ajax / request promise) to validate this payload in order command-side service? But I think, the performance will get worse if the API called directly just for validation. Because, we have developed an event processor outside the command-service that listen from the event and apply the event to the materalized view.
Thank you.
As there are more than one bounded contexts that need to be queried for the validation to pass you need to consider eventual consistency. That being said, there is always a chance that the process as a whole can be in an invalid state for a "small" amount of time. For example, the user could be deactivated after the command is accepted and before the order is shipped. An online shop is a complex system and exceptions could appear in any of its subsystems. However, being implemented as an event-driven system helps; every time the ordering process enters an invalid state you can take compensatory actions/commands. For example, if the user is deactivated in the meantime you can cancel all its standing orders, release the reserved products, announce the potential customers that have those products in the wishlist that they are not available and so on.
There are many kinds of validation in DDD but I follow the general rule that the validation should be done as early as possible but without compromising data consistency. So, in order to be early you could query the readmodel to reject the commands that couldn't possible be valid and in order for the system to be consistent you need to make another check just before the order is shipped.
Now let's talk about your specific questions:
How to know that the customer is really exists in database (query-side customer service) and still active?
You can query the readmodel to verify that the user exists and it is still active. You should do this as a command that comes from an invalid user is a strong indication of some kind of attack and you don't want those kind of commands passing through your system. However, even if a command passes this check, it does not necessarily mean that the order will be shipped as other exceptions could be raised in between.
How to know that the product is exists in database and the status of the product is published?
Again, you can query the readmodel in order to notify the user that the product is not available at the moment. Or, depending on your business, you could allow the command to pass if you know that those products will be available in less than 24 hours based on some previous statistics (for example you know that TV sets arrive daily in your stock). Or you could let the customer choose whether it waits or not. In this case, if the products are not in stock at the final phase of the ordering (the shipping) you notify the customer that the products are not in stock anymore.
How to know whether the customer eligible to get the promo price from the related product?
You will probably have to query another bounded context like Promotions BC to check this. This depends on how promotions are validated/used.
Is it ok to call API directly (like point-to-point / ajax / request promise) to validate this payload in order command-side service? But I think, the performance will get worse if the API called directly just for validation.
This depends on how resilient you want your system to be and how fast you want to reject invalid commands.
Synchronous call are simpler to implement but they lead to a less resilient system (you should be aware of cascade failures and use technics like circuit breaker to stop them).
Asynchronous (i.e. using events) calls are harder to implement but make you system more resilient. In order to have async calls, the ordering system can subscribe to other systems for events and maintain a private state that can be queried for validation purposes as the commands arrive. In this way, the ordering system continues to work even of the link to inventory or customer management systems are down.
In any case, it really depends on your business and none of us can tell you exaclty what to do.
As always everything depends on the specifics of the domain but as a general principle cross domain validation should be done via the read model.
In this case, I would maintain a read model within each microservice for use in validation. Of course, that brings with it the question of eventual consistency.
How you handle that should come from your understanding of the domain. Factors such as the length of the eventual consistency compared to the frequency of updates should be considered. The cost of getting it wrong for the business compared to the cost of development to minimise the problem. In many cases, just recording the fact there has been a problem is more than adequate for the business.
I have a blog post dedicated to validation which you can find here: How To Validate Commands in a CQRS Application
The team I manage has been using TFS for years, but we've used a 3rd party system for tracking bugs and features. I'm looking to upgrade our team into TFS 2013 and I've done tons of reading and research into how TFS manages work items, backlogs, iterations, tasks etc. And although I understand the principles of what 'can' be done, I'm having a hard time visualizing 'how' our team would work with these work items as tasks.
If anyone knows of any best practice guides for actual sample based usage, or can answer any of these questions that'd be great
1) Product backlog - Under the 'configure schedule and iterations' what is the concept for setting the current 'backlog iteration'? Our team uses short 2 week iterations with a build number, but setting the build iteration as the current backlog makes all new PBI's scoped to only that iteration. Any items not complete in that iteration would disappear once I set the current build to the next iteration number. On the other hand, if I set it to the parent root node, I could see the PBI list getting rather large over time. What is the best method for managing PBI's that are unassigned and working in a simple Parent->build1/build2 etc structure?
2) Features - So I create a feature, perhaps it spans many work items and several tasks. They get completed over time, but I've noticed there's no 'auto' complete or status updates on parent items. So who/when is a Feature item supposed to get marked complete? If the product owner is supposed to use the features list to get an overview of work, they have no idea if all the dependent items have been complete and when to mark the feature Done.
3) Work Items - Managing these, and in particular their 'state' or status seems like a royal pain. On the task board you can't change their state, only their tasks with drag-drop, which is nice. But you complete all the tasks, and the parent work item stays in status 'New'. Do you really have to micro-manage every work item, open it up, and set the state to Done?
4) QA/testing - For every work item, each team member is responsible for testing each item, so every item is tested by multiple people, and logging any issues found. What's the best way to use work items or tasks for this?
5) Build Complete - Once every work item in the iteration is marked Done then I assume they are removed from the product backlog correct? The exception to this seems to be the features they were tied to, the feature item itself remains open. How do stakeholders view a list of features that were completed in the current build?
I can't answer everything (indeed, there is no one "right" answer), but here's how my team uses TFS - it might give you some ideas:
We use Area Path to represent a Project or Epic that work belongs under. When a work item is created it is assigned to a project using the Area Path, and it never changes.
Then to represent "when" work is done we use a hierarchical iteration path under 3 headings (for a project called "Project"): Project\Completed, Project\Current, Project\Future.
Stories in the product backlog are initially assigned to Future (We go a bit further in fact and use New stories to represent "proposed" work, and Active ones to represent the "approved" backlog - this allows us to plan tentative projects/contracts that convert into real work when they get the green light). At this stage we do Planning Poker to get Story Points and then the Project Managers assign stack ranks to the stories to help to decide what to move from Proposed to Product backlog, and then eventually what we should think about for the next iteration.
When we start an iteration we create a new iteration (call it 001) under Future, i.e. Project\Future\001. Then Stories are chosen from the Product Backlog for implementation - they get assigned to this iteration. When the iteration is ready to start, we use a "conveyor belt" approach which moves all the iterations along one "place" in the hierarchy: In the Iteration Path configuration UI, just drag the 001 iteration from Future to Current. This re-paths everything in that path automatically so that all the active work is instantly under Project\Current.
As we complete the iteration, we would have Current\001 and we'd then add Future\002. Then we move 001 and 002 along the conveyor (to Project\Completed\001 and Project\Current\002 respectively). This way the work gets assigned to one iteration and stays there, but the iteration as a whole moves from future ...to current ...to completed. This allows us to build queries like "all current work" (all work under "Project\Current") that we don't need to rewrite for every iteration, and this saves a massive amount of time and eliminates a lot of mistakes trying to re-assign iteration paths constantly - in most cases the iteration is only changed once (from future to an actual iteration).
When a story moves into the current iteration, we choose an implementing team (e.g. an owner to accept delivery, and a developer and a tester to implement the work) and those people add tasks for any work that needs to be done to deliver the story. Any bugs/issues that crop up for that story during the iteration are also parented to the Story or Tasks.
We found the TFS tools pretty poor (clumsy, slow, micro-managing), so we now use a home-built dashboard that shows us a list of stories, so in our scrum we can step through the stories and see the tasks/bugs/issues for each, who is working on them, and how much work they reported on the task since the last scrum. This gives us a really clear basis to discuss the story.
We close tasks/bugs/issues as we complete them, but the story stays open till the end of the iteration (so that any new bugs found can be attached and dealt with). We then use a custom tool to "Resolve" the story, which closes all the child work items, and then checks if the parent Feature or Epic is now completed and can also be marked "Resolved". This can also be done in stock TFS just using a manual process, but it is rather laborious, and the code to automate it is only an hour or two's work. I really don't understand why TFS makes you essentially update all the database tables by hand when it's so easy to automate. (In a similar way, the TFS kanban is unnecessarily time consuming to manage because items only appear on it if they are perfectly formed - get any of the estimate, remaining, completed, area, iteration, assigned-to, parent link, etc wrong and it vanishes! So I've written e.g. a simple 'create task' tool that asks for the estimate, assignee and title, and fill in the rest - this took me a couple of hours to implement and has eradicated all the time consuming errors and hassle of using TFS 'raw')
When processing tasks, TFS provides 'Activity' states (planning, development, testing, documentation etc) - which implies that each single task will be passed linearly through a chain of different people to be implemented... but we feel this is a poor approach, because we want to encourage the team working on a story to work in parallel and work together, not "throw their bit over the fence to the next guy". So instead each person on the team creates one or more tasks under the story that represent the parcels of work (programming, testing, documenting) they must personally do to deliver the story, and each task only ever has one owner. (This works well in our scrum dashboard because it shows the story and its list of child tasks/bugs/issues, so the entire context of the story's work can be seen easily at a glance). The separate tasks allow the programmer and tester to work together in a tight, iterative, co-operative agile loop, often with progressive roll-out of parts of the feature for testing, rather than the programmer finishing all his work before passing the complete article over to the tester in a waterfall-y way. At the end of the iteration, the story-team demos their story to the wider development team, and they are all equally responsible for ensuring that everything needed is delivered. After the demo, the Product Owner/Champion then accepts the work as done (or rejects it). This vastly reduces the amount of work that gets dropped "between the cracks" where people think somebody else will do it, helping us to get to a solid delivery at the end. We've found communication within the team and story delivery significantly improved since we moved to this approach.
I should mention that to get good estimates and burn-downs we try to keep each task less than 5 days work, and to avoid micro-management we try to avoid splitting down tasks into anything under about 2 days (though obviously some tasks are necessarily shorter).
As I've mentioned, we log bugs/issues as children of the task or story they affect (and can also add Related links if they impact more than one story). At the end of the iteration as well as demoing the new features to the rest of the team, the release build is regression-tested as a whole. Any bugs found are fixed in a release branch and within (hopefully) a day or two we have a stable customer release. We aim to have a product of customer-releasable quality from every iteration, and to keep the number of outstanding bugs per developer below 5 (usually 1-3). Before introducing this system, we had an ongoing average of 20 bugs per developer, an unpleasant technical debt. (Note: we reserve some time in every iteration for fixing these bugs, but when bugs are too gnarly to fix then-and-there, we usually convert them into new stories so that they can be estimated and scheduled for a future iteration just like other work, so the bug-list and technical debt is never allowed to build up, and where possible bug fixing is not allowed to derail our iteration plan.
We don't treat work in progress (items in an iteration) as Product Backlog - the product backlog is work that we plan to do in the future, and when it moves into an iteration it becomes actively worked on and no longer in the "to do" list (it's the Iteration backlog, not the Product backlog). When all of the work (task/bug) is complete, then the parent story can be Resolved ('we think it is "done"') and then Closed ('the Product Owner accepts it as "done"') and so a simple query (work under Project\Current that is Closed) will tell you what you have delivered this iteration.
Lastly when we close out the iteration, the whole iteration moves into Project\Completed, so then you can easily query all of the work which has ever been completed (under Project\Completed), and still grouped within their individual iterations. So at any time if you want to know what "Build 107" added, you can just do a query for all Closed stories under iteration path Project\Completed\107. We mark incomplete/abandoned work as Removed, so for us Closed means "Done". If work is not completed in one iteration and is continued in the next, then we simply move the story to the next iteration, and so the completed work then shows up in any queries for "Build 108" instead - so this perfectly tracks the achieved deliveries for an iteration.
To keep things consistent, only a few team members can change different types of item. So our "planning items" (Epics, Features, Stories) are only changed by the Project Manager or Product Owners. Tasks are all owned and thus created/changed/closed by the developer that is doing the work. PMs track progress of stories and devs track progress of tasks.
1) Product backlog - Under the 'configure schedule and iterations'
what is the concept for setting the current 'backlog iteration'? Our
team uses short 2 week iterations with a build number, but setting the
build iteration as the current backlog makes all new PBI's scoped to
only that iteration. Any items not complete in that iteration would
disappear once I set the current build to the next iteration number.
On the other hand, if I set it to the parent root node, I could see
the PBI list getting rather large over time. What is the best method
for managing PBI's that are unassigned and working in a simple
Parent->build1/build2 etc structure?
TFS has two different backlogs. The Product Backlog of your team and the Sprint backlog of your team. In the iteration configuration screen you define which iteration contains your teams product backlog (by setting the Backlog iteration) and which iterations below that will represent your sprints .
If you have a large list of PBI's you could put these either in an iteration above the current backlog iteration, which will effectively hide them from the backlog pages. Or you can place them in a separate iteration that is a sibbling of your Backlog iteration.
2) Features - So I create a feature, perhaps it spans many work items
and several tasks. They get completed over time, but I've noticed
there's no 'auto' complete or status updates on parent items. So
who/when is a Feature item supposed to get marked complete? If the
product owner is supposed to use the features list to get an overview
of work, they have no idea if all the dependent items have been
complete and when to mark the feature Done.
There is no auto-complete or auto-close. Normally the Product Owner (scrum role) will keep an eye out on what he has requested and knows just about when a feature is about to be completed.
You can also view the hierarchy of Product backlog items to features in the Product Backlog view by selecting the Features to Backlog Items view. This will also list the states of the underlying stories:
3) Work Items - Managing these, and in particular their 'state' or
status seems like a royal pain. On the task board you can't change
their state, only their tasks with drag-drop, which is nice. But you
complete all the tasks, and the parent work item stays in status
'New'. Do you really have to micro-manage every work item, open it up,
and set the state to Done?
Normally the product owner/project manager will approve stories for pickup and move them from new to approved. Then during the Sprint planning meeting (or at the start of a sprint), the team selects which items they will work on and will move these from Approved to Committed.
Then at the end of the sprint (or when all tasks under a story are done), the development team shows the product owner the finished work and then moves the story to done as well.
4) QA/testing - For every work item, each team member is responsible
for testing each item, so every item is tested by multiple people, and
logging any issues found. What's the best way to use work items or
tasks for this?
Depends on the maturity of the team. And depends on your adoption of Test manager (Test Case work item). If your team is pretty mature and is using Test manager to link Test Cases to your Stories, then you can view the status of your tests in Web Access. If the team consistently works in a ATDD way of working, they'll do the work needed to make a test succeed before moving on to the next piece of work. In such a workflow it's not really needed to create "design-build-test" work items. The work item would probably be akin to "Make test X pass" and would include all the work to create the test, build the code and make the test pass.
5) Build Complete - Once every work item in the iteration is marked
Done then I assume they are removed from the product backlog correct?
The exception to this seems to be the features they were tied to, the
feature item itself remains open. How do stakeholders view a list of
features that were completed in the current build?
Again, use the Feature to Product Backlog Item view to see which features have had all their work finished. The stakeholders mentally verify that this was indeed all they wanted and that they have no additional requests, work, feedback that is needed to truly complete the feature. If this is the case they will close the feature by moving it to done.
I am trying to make a functionnality so that a customer will be able to split his order into 2, in case some articles are temporarily unavailable and if they wish that we send them part of their order first. So the idea is to create 2 new orders and cancelling the old one.
Do you have any idee about how to do this programmatically please ?
What you're describing doesn't sound necessary... You're talking about sending part of the order first... Notice in the Magento Admin once an order is place you can create an invoice, take note that you do not have to invoice everything at one time, the same is true when you create a shipment. You'll need to make sure you're merchant / payment gateway supports multiple partial captures against a single authorization.
However, if you really want to split the orders in two, it is a rather complicated process. We've done it, and its very tricky... you need to modify the opcheckout.js file, you'll need to modify the template since you will have to create seperate shipping methods for each order. You'll need to modify the OnePage controller & Model files very significantly. There are tricky areas in terms of re-executing the totals and making sure data on the order and subsequent quote and address models is precisely what is required by Magento. Maintaining the other checkout functionality requires diligence, such as saving the customer's address when checking out. If you're really going down the path of coding something that splits an order into two orders during the checkout process, feel free to send me a message and we can talk more in-depth and I'll send you some code.