|18|| ||"Rule6" doc in the middle of a filing locks up the filing, can't Complete||2 - Not Critical - Major (4 hr)||10-SubmittedToAmCad||5/21/2013||Giuseppe|
10/6/14: Continued problemls with docs that are redacted. From email/Kathy Carrara: HELP!!!
It seems that whenever someone files an attachment in e-cabinet that is confidential/redacted document, we have a problem.
When I look for filings from today by Kathryn Durdy it shows that she submitted a redacted document in dkt. no. 588-10-14 Rdcv (see screen shot below). It has an unredacted document attached.
The initial complaint was filed on 10/3/14that I accepted but it should have been rejected because it had unredacted docs in it but I didn’t notice until I had completed the filing. So I told her to resubmit them after redacting.
I have reviewed and completed today’s filing twice now but it does not show up in 588-10-14 Rdcv in ecabinet. Instead it shows up in her filings for today as “pending review”.
In the past you usually have Guiseppe or Rao take care of the problem, but since it is an ongoing issue, is there something he/they can do to prevent it happening again?
7/22/13CF: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: We have identified a common factor in at least two cases of the filer having clicked the "edit" button after they had uploaded their documents. In testing, I was unable to reproduce the grayed out fields; I did note that when the edit screen pops up, the rule 6 confidentiality question is presented again but here the answer is defaulted to "NO". There should be no default answer on this screen - the filer should have to choose. There is an attachment.
5/6/13 gf: Unable to reproduce in TEST.
5/6/13 CF: kathy Gray's email: In the Windsor Civil Que is filing # 83332 which was filed as an unredacted document without a redacted document.
5/3/13 RC: Apparently, if an online filer picked Rule6 for a document in the middle of a filing (3 docs, 1 doc regular, 1 doc Rule6, and 3rd doc regular), the system used to allow clerks to Complete the filing and change the "Rule6" doc group/type to a regular doc group/type. Since the new release, the "Rule6 doc" is grey'd out, and the menu line is also locked so the clerk cannot Reject the document. This also prevents them from Complete the filing, since Complete thinks there is one document that has not been Accept/Reject. Users are telling me this locking/greying the menu and doc type choices so they cannot fix the mis-marked Rule6 (user clicked the wrong choice) is new since the new release. This is a problem for us.
5/21/13 CF: Rick tested this successfully.
5/21/13 gf: Work around applied to Unlock document . Only added Unlock link to top area because adding to Bottom links is somewhat painful as there is not enough room at 1024 x 768 resolution.
5/15/13 gf: Rick asked that the 'unlock' button be added to the bottom of clerk review screen so that it can be clicked by non-admins.
5/14/13 RC: PREFERRED SOLUTION: If this problem cannot be fixed, we would like a way that System Admin can "unlock" the entire filing for clerk review (blue link menu bar and metadata). This "Unlock Filing" could be a menu choice (next to Delete) on the admin version of the Search/Filings screen and would apply to all documents in a filing.
5/9/13 RC: Sent email to Giuseppe/Rao saying that this is a real problem. If no quick fix, then how about a system admin screen workaround that allows us to force an "Accept" or "Reject" for any document in a filing?
5/8/13 RC: more samples in Rutland HOLD queue: From: Conklin, Rick
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:04 PM
To: Giuseppe Ferrigno; 'Andrew Chanthaphone'
Cc: Foster, Cindy; 'DV Rao'
Subject: Priority 2 Issue with eCabinet - More on the Rule6 filings
More are there for you to look at .. look in the Rutland Hold Queue, weird stuff:
filing 83287 – has 3 docs, says all are “rule 6..” in the red words at the top, yet all three are not grey-out and looks like you can process them? I expect to see one greyed as a “child” but I don’t??
filing 83891 – has 1 doc, says is “rule 6”, IS greyed-out, clerk is stuck. How can this be? If on the filing screen the attorney picks Rule 6, then the system forces both a parent (redacted) and a child/paperclip (un-redacted or list). The system should never allow a Rule6 filing with only one document – at a min there should be a parent and its child??
We don’t know how filers are doing this, since we also cannot seem to replicate … but it is happening, and we are convinced something changed in the new release since this didn’t start happening to us before a few weeks ago.
If we can replicate we will let you know … in the meantime can you please look through the code and see what causes the menu bar to grey-out for a Rule6 – something has changed in that logic.
5/6/13 gf: Unable to reproduce in TEST.
5/6/13 gf: Trying to reproduce issue in TEST.
|24|| ||"Account is inactive" message not correct in Forgot Password||2 - Not Critical - Major (4 hr)||92-CloseXferToDEV||AMCAD Helpdesk|
From: Giuseppe Ferrigno [mailto:GFerrigno@AMCAD.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:10 PM
To: Conklin, Rick
Cc: Foster, Cindy; Corsones, Therese
Subject: RE: Account is "inactive" message
I am able to duplicate the issue. It appears to be related to providing the incorrect answer to the Security Question using the Primary email (see screenshots below)… it works correctly when the User Name is provided.
Notice the correct message for invalid Security Answer when user name is used:
Let me get back to you with a game plan for when this issue can be addressed in TEST.
AMCAD | Technology | Innovation | Progress
(512) 784-8874 cell
From: Conklin, Rick [mailto:Rick.Conklin@state.vt.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:55 AM
To: Giuseppe Ferrigno
Cc: Foster, Cindy; Corsones, Therese
Subject: RE: Account is "inactive" message
Giuseppe – Hurray ??? (I am not sure you will like it … ;-). In TEST, I got the “Account is inactive” box (1st screen shot below). However, you will see that all my accounts in TEST are ACTIVE (2nd screen shot below). I know for at least one of my accounts “Mom” is the correct security password. BUT … Some logic under the “Reset Password” button is generating this message box – the message box may not be wrong, but it’s message text is. What is interesting about me is that I have multiple accounts in TEST, and they all have my same email as the primary email. So I would guess the logic is having trouble figuring out WHICH account to reset the password?
That doesn’t make a lot of sense for attorney/filers in Production. They are not likely to have multiple accounts with the same primary email. It could happen but not likely. The man yesterday only had one account that I saw. He told me he put in his email (not his user name), so I would say that logic path has something to do with putting in email, and perhaps not answering the Security Question properly (yesterday, he thought he did, but wasn’t sure).
Anyway … I suspect there is something wrong with the error handling logic under the Reset Password button. Perhaps it is a simple matter that eUniversa is confused because the SQL query to look up “primary email” was expecting a single row to return, and it got multiple rows (or no row? probably more likely for users who don’t remember either email or user name) instead, then the message box is probably necessary but needs a different message?? Please let us know what you discover.
8/28/13 RC: Move to Next Drop, #64
|29|| ||Case not visible via Search Cases ||2 - Not Critical - Major (4 hr)||81-JudiciaryTEST||AMCAD Helpdesk|
7/26/13 CF: email to GF
Forwarding you a court user’s dilemma below – the docket number in question, 429-6-13 Rdcv, cannot be found via a case search but documents filed in the case can be located through a search on the date of filing (6/19/13), as well as through the filer’s log. There is a confidential document in the midst of the filing and I thought perhaps that was causing misbehavior since we have had some problems with Rule 6 lately. Could you check this out as to why this case is not available through search cases? I will put this in eBug as well. Thank you.
From: Carrara, Kathleen
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:30 AM
To: JUD - eCabinet
Subject: PROBLEM WITH CASE NOT SHOWING UP IN ECABINET
RE: Fair Haven Auto Supply vs Fat Tom’s Auto Repair
Docket No. 429-6-13 Rdcv
Sorry… but I have another puzzler. Atty David Carpenter called just now to explain that he filed a new case in June but when he tries to file something it does not allow him to. I looked the docket number up in ecabinet and could not find it either. So I went to his filings for 6/13/13 and found it that way. I clicked “complete” and told him it should be all set. However, I went back to look at the file again and it still does not show up. I went back in through his filings again, found it again, did “unlock” on all the documents (because he has an unredacted document attached as confidential), and clicked complete again. And… it still is not showing up. So…. What to do??
I will contact him and let him know there is some technical issue at this point so he might not be able to file his pleadings until it gets straightened out. Thanks!
Kathleen A. Carrara,DOCKET CLERK
VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
RUTLAND CIVIL DIVISION
83 Center Street - Suite 3
Rutland, VT firstname.lastname@example.org
(802) 775-4394 x 12 (phone)
(802) 775-2291 (fax)
8/28/13 RC: Sent another example of this to G for research today via email. Same as Rule 6 issue.
|30|| ||Search Filings: View any doc from any queue AND why save changes to view?||2 - Not Critical - Major (4 hr)||10-SubmittedToAmCad||AMCAD Helpdesk|
See attached document for complete email. Giuseppe thought this is a bug.
1) When on screen in Search: Filings, need to be able to view any document from any queue in any status.
2) If you view a document, system allows you to edit it? How should this work?
|35|| ||Admin registration screen needs to allow numbers in the name fields||2 - Not Critical - Major (4 hr)||10-SubmittedToAmCad||11/1/2014||AMCAD Helpdesk|
Current admin registration screen does not allow numbers in name fields in Test db. Enhancement #42 in Dev requests numbers not be allowed in teh FILER registration screen, BUT they ARE allowed in the admin registration screen -admin creating any type of role inc. LEAs.
|10|| ||Rule6 paper clip document is split to separate document in Viewer||3 - Not Critical - Std (3 day)||10-SubmittedToAmCad||AMCAD Helpdesk|
I created two pdfs -- one was my "redacted" document, and the other was my "confidential" document. I filed into Test1 environment 810-10-10 RDCV. Filing went fine, answered yes/yes to Rule 6 questions, it prompted me for second document etc. Processing in Clerk Review was fine, it knew parent and second document as "paperclip". But when I viewed filing in Clerk Viewer, it lists both documents separately, and did not have the "paperclip" symbol beside the parent (redacted) document.
|12|| ||Error Message in Editing Case Information||3 - Not Critical - Std (3 day)||81-JudiciaryTEST||Giuseppe|
1/3/13 CF: While tag splitting documents under a clerk sign on in Production, I neglected to add the proper court code to a docket number field.
I then signed on as an admin, accessed the filing by searching in the System Viewer, highlighting the row then opening the Case Information tab, and made the addition to the docket number. (Filing # is 70396, docket #167-9-12 (to which I was attempting to add Wnjv). When I hit SAVE, I get an error. See attachment for full text of email plus screenshots sent to AmCad 1/3/13.
8/28/13 RC: We think this is being fixed by Next Drop #34.
7/2/13 gf: These can be manually handled by AMCAD until such time that it can be done as needed by the administrator.
1/4/13 GF's email: . The reason you were getting the error is that the docket number already existed. It was added with the second document. See attachment for screenshots and further clarification
1/4/13 CF: Further Note: I have asked GF how to handle a correction which intentionally changes an erroneous docket number to an existing docket number. Awaiting response.
|23|| ||Public view not showing all documents||3 - Not Critical - Std (3 day)||92-CloseXferToDEV||AMCAD Helpdesk|
Docket No. 676-10-10 Wrcv, none of the documents before 11/2010 appear on the public viewer, but they appear in the clerk viewer. The last document that appears in the public viewer is the Answer of 11/10/10. WHY DONT ALL DOCS SHOW?
1) As clerk, Search/Cases for 676-10-10 WRCV. Notice on TOC screen there are 7 documents "older" than the 11/10 Answer doc (all filed by an attorney)
2) In PAT/Public viewer, search same docket. Final 7 oldest docs don't show up, even through all "General" subfolder
3) In PAT/Party viewer, same search, all documents (including oldest 7) show up. DON'T KNOW WHY?
7/31/13 RC -- see "Next Drop" item #66, some cases not showing because there are two internal "values" for "General" etc depending on if the case is Public or Not Public. We have this in for a fix.
|26|| ||PAT/Public viewer not showing General subfolder id=7||3 - Not Critical - Std (3 day)||92-CloseXferToDEV||AMCAD Helpdesk|
P.A.T FIX (until we study the implications of the more general FIX above): Public Terminal View will not show any document for any case unless Folder=1/Public. Therefore, all “General” documents for any Folder=1 case should show in the Public View: either General subfolder=1 or 7.
o As far as I know, there was never the concept of a “Non Public ‘General’ document” – this is what Confidential is for.
o PAT fix only applies to General docs in Public; I suspect that Party view works ok.
7/2/13gf: Issue duplicated by AMCAD
|27|| ||IE10 does not work correctly with View Doc in eCab||3 - Not Critical - Std (3 day)||20-WorkingOnSolution||AMCAD Helpdesk|
Do Search/Cases (or PAT view). When computer is running IE10, if you do View Doc on a TOC screen, then the screen with the document image freezes. If you try to Close and return, the menu line goes away and the user cannot move off the screen. Also see email trail attached for discussion on this.
8/28/13 RC: G said that there is a fix for this that needs to be applied to our environment. (Hotfix code as part of Sept 3)
7/2/13gf: Not able to duplicate in IE10. Duplicated in IE9 and provided workaround by turning on Compatibility View.
|28|| ||First Page of PDF in TOC screen not available||3 - Not Critical - Std (3 day)||92-CloseXferToDEV||AMCAD Helpdesk|
In docket 215-3-12 Rdcv, Attorney Jeffrey Smith filed documents on March 26 2012 and April 2 2012 (filing numbers 44603 and 45219.) When you search cases and try to view docs from the TOC screen, the first page of a multi page PDF is blank. One-page filings are blank.
However, if you go to Attorney Smith’s filing log, you can go to view docs and the pages are there.
See eBug item #26 (has to do with underlying code not changing when Not Public folder changed to Public)
|31|| ||Search Cases - does not limit to Document Type||3 - Not Critical - Std (3 day)||10-SubmittedToAmCad||AMCAD Helpdesk|
Looking for: Across all Family units in the state, return the cases where there is a Doc Type= Photograph Juvenile filed as part of a Juvenile Case Plan. Returns: over 500 cases, not possible. Search criteria does not limit search.
NOTE: If you put in one Unit (instead of ALL), appears to work. SEE ATTACHMENT.
|32|| ||Applications for Role Types Submitting License #s should go to manual approval queue||3 - Not Critical - Std (3 day)||10-SubmittedToAmCad||AMCAD Helpdesk|
8/22/13: On the filer registration page, several role types must submit license or other numbers: VT Attorneys, Pro Hac Vices, DCF filers, LEAs and LEOs. Applications for all of the above role types should be sent to the "registration applciation" queue for manual approval. Currently, the LEAs and LEOs bypass the manual approval queue. Please change them so that new LEA and LEO applicants are sent to the manual approval queue.
|34|| ||Change Password Screen - system does not recognize email addresses that contain an apostrophe such as O'hara||3 - Not Critical - Std (3 day)||10-SubmittedToAmCad||10/24/2014||AMCAD Helpdesk|
SECOND incident 10/21/14: Filer with an apostrophe in his email address tried to update the secondary email on his existing ecab account. Account was previously created using his apostrophe'd email address - no problem. Today however, when he tried to submit the change to a secondary email, he rec'd error message that the primary email was not valid. (see attachment.) primary email address had not even been changed. )
10/9/14 Filer tried to reset password herself. Received error message saying the email address she had entered was not valid. Name had an apostrophe in it.
|9|| ||Can't process registration application when email address has faulty syntax||4 - Move to efilingDEV (next drop)||92-CloseXferToDEV||Cindy|
Please remove Sarajean Boardman from the Registration Applications queue. I created this entity purposely using a faulty syntax for the email address. Now I can neither approve or reject her, as I get the following error message. She is stuck in the queue. We should be able to process a user with a faulty address, whether they registered themselves or whether it was an admin creating the account. The second screenshot below shots that the rejection message does not go away after leaving the error message screen. I’ll put this in eBug. See attachment for screenshots.
7/2/13gf: This has been moved to efilingDEV by VT. Please close in eBug.