Child pages
  • Sprint 202
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata



  • Sprint review (30mins)
  • Retrospective (30mins)
  • Discussion Items
  • Sprint Planning


Discussion Items

  1. (Matt) Welcome Kim. I'm adding Kim into the USPS-R team in an effort to tighten our QA feedback loop and more effectively test our code changes. Hopefully, this will help reduce our defect rate. 
    1. QA in general needs to be looked at
    2. Speed v.s. Quality
    3. Unit test all new code (TDD?)
    4. Other layers of testing.....
      1. funtional 
      2. integration
      3. security 
      4. performance
      5. user acceptance
      6. others?
    5. JIRA test sessions using bonfire...a place for these in the process?
      1. maybe when bugs are isolated?
      2. must use anonymized data for screenshots etc.
    6. Reimplement daily standups (10mins or less)
    7. stay on top of code reviews (all code reviews done by end of sprint)
      1. add Kim to code reviews
    8. Tech writer role? (maybe a discussion for later with a broader group)
    9. UAT role?
  2. (Matt) Tool set for Kim
    1. IntelliJ license 
    2. setup
    3. pair with team me and/or other team members for first few sprints? 
  3. (Matt) Feature branch policy reminder from last sprint
  4. (Matt) First wave support 
    1. email address
    2. ticketing system allowing tickets to be generated via e-mail
      1. becomes more critical as volume increases
    3. Support team v.s. development team support roles 
      1. during first wave 
      2. subsequent waves
  5. (Matt) Vaadin 8 upgrade status?
    1. Matthew Calmes check with Unknown User (springer)
  6. (Greg) Andrea asked what the 'Pay Date' field was used for when creating Attendance entries
    1. It appears that classic likely used this for SERS/STRS and other reporting
      1. It seems that it was unlikely that a user would enter this when creating entries
      2. But might want to adjust the Pay Date automatically stamped for reporting, if necessary
      3. Would an Adjustment serve this purpose better?
    2. Do we need this field?
    3. If so, are we using it appropriately in Redesign?
    4. Greg Shepherd evaluate how redesign is counting the service days. 
      1. if this pay date stamp does not come into play we need to decide if we should retain it and stamp it for informational purposes in redesign.
      2. In classic they could change this and affect service day counts, we probably do not want to carry this forward in USPS-R, but make this read only and informational 
  7. (Matt) Payrollcd for first wave followup
    1. add pdf copy of reports to file archive?
  8. (Matt) Payded timing and USPS-R implications
    1. Marc Davis will double check that we are importing these adjustments for accum correctly, but we believe we are. 
  9. (Greg per Valerie) The Employee lastPaid date property is imported, but AFAICT is not used or updated thereafter
    1. I'm thinking this should be a getter?
  10. (Greg per Valerie) The 'rate' field is being totaled on custom reports and is confusing
  11. (Greg per Valerie) The default filenames when generating XML files differ from classic and do not match what Edge is expecting
    1. Payee checks is CHECKS.XML instead of PAY*.XML
    2. Direct deposit notices need to start with DIR (didn't check what redesign does)
  12. (Greg per Valerie) Another issue that is confusing, due to the way Classic and redesign work, is that in Classic, if you add an attendance entry and post to Future, it pops you to future and you complete the entry, but it doesn't take you back to the original attendance screen.  I'm sure it's something not easily, if at all possible, to have replicated in redesign.  So, we are wondering if you can add the ability, under the MORE option, to select the attendance date that was entered on the ATTENDANCE RECORD prior to placing the payment information into FUTPAY?  I think that would help the user when they are in FUTPAY since they aren't getting sent back to the ATTENDANCE SCREEN.
  13. (Matt) Adding UAT testers and Chuck to
  14. (davis) Added issue to update Outstanding Payables to prevent checks for 0.00 from being created.  USPSR-3234 - Getting issue details... STATUS
    1. I believe this should be assigned on 5.1.0
  15. (Greg) Running the import through the App locally, the *ImportImpl classes in separate modules are not being included
    1. EmisContractor, ContractedService, EmisReporting imports are not executed at all 
  16. (davis) Employee Number auto assignment review

Meeting Notes




  • No labels