UC: Update Initial Distribution Process on UC Folder for Resubmittals (SS) (On PROD)

[TracyLinder]

Creating a new UC folder process and features for distribution & resubmittals.

Changes are deploying with Card #13395

Remove Initial Distribution Process from Folder Setup

• This process should no longer insert automatically.
• The process needs to continue to work on legacy UC folders.
  • Legacy UC Folders = Any UC folder that exists with a closed Web Acceptance process

Create New Folder Process UC Distribution

• [ ] Process Description: UC Distribution
• [ ] When to Insert: On Web Acceptance process, when attempt Accepted is saved, system should insert the UC Distribution process
• [ ] Process Group: Intake
• [ ] Process Assigned To: Process should not assign to anyone; keep null
• [ ] Do not configure to-end, to-start, or end dates.
• [ ] Status: Open. It should never close

New Process Info: Review Due Date

• [ ] Info Description: Review Due Date
• [ ] Info Type: Date
• [ ] Validation: Date must be today or in the future
• [ ] Validation Error: Review Due Date must be current or future.

New Valid Process Attempts:

• [ ] Initial Distribution
• [ ] Initial Distribution No Franchise
• [ ] Redistribute All
• [ ] Redistribute No Franchise
• [ ] Redistribute Rejected

Attempt Features/Functionality:

1. Initial Distribution

• [ ] Does not update process status
• [ ] Updates folder status to In Review
• [ ] Inserts a review process for all reviewers checked Yes on the info tab, and all franchise reviewers. (See Reviewer Processes Inserted:)
• [ ] Inserts the correct review comment document for each review process inserted except for Franchises

2. Initial Distribution No Franchise

• [ ] Does not update process status
• [ ] Updates folder status to In Review
• [ ] Inserts a review process for all reviewers checked Yes on the info tab. (See Reviewer Processes Inserted:)
• [ ] Inserts the correct review comment document for each review process inserted except for Franchises

3. Redistribute All

• [ ] Validate that the process info was saved - Review Due Date
  • Validation Error Message: Process info Review Due Date is required.
• [ ] Does not update process status
• [ ] Updates folder status to In Review
• [ ] Inserts a review process for all reviewers checked Yes on the info tab, and all franchise reviewers. (See Reviewer Processes Inserted:)
• [ ] Updates folder info AULCC Meeting Date with the date saved on process info Review Due Date.
• [ ] Removes the process info Review Due Date value - resets to Null.

4. Redistribute No Franchise

• [ ] Validate that the process info was saved - Review Due Date
  • Validation Error Message: Process info Review Due Date is required.
• [ ] Does not update process status
• [ ] Updates folder status to In Review
• [ ] Inserts a review process for all reviewers checked Yes on the info tab. (See Reviewer Processes Inserted:)
• [ ] Inserts the correct review comment document for each review process inserted
• [ ] Updates folder info AULCC Meeting Date with the date saved on process info Review Due Date.
• [ ] Removes the process info Review Due Date value - resets to Null.

5. Redistribute Rejected

• [ ] Validate that the process info was saved - Review Due Date
  • Validation Error Message: Process info Review Due Date is required.
• [ ] Does not update process status
• [ ] Updates folder status to In Review
• [ ] Inserts a review process for all reviews (processes) in the previous review cycle with a process status of Rejected or Informal Update
• [ ] Inserts the correct review comment document for each review process inserted except Franchises
• [ ] Updates folder info AULCC Meeting Date with the date saved on process info Review Due Date.
• [ ] Removes the process info Review Due Date value - resets to Null.

Reviewer Processes Inserted:

For Initial Distributions:

• [ ] Uses current programming to determine who the processes should be assigned to
• Look at folder info tab, Distribution group - if the info is yes, insert a folder process review for them and assign the process to the corresponding reviewer info.
• [ ] Adds a process Comment: Review Cycle 1
• [ ] Review process To-Start Date = Today's Date
• [ ] Review Process To-End Date = AULCC Meeting Date (on info tab)

For Re-Distributions:

• [ ] Uses current programming to determine who the processes should be assigned to
• [ ] Adds a process Comment: Review Cycle {insert cycle number}
  • Cycle number is iterative - the previous cycle number + 1
• [ ] Review process To-Start Date = Today's Date
• [ ] Review Process To-End Date = Process Info Review Due Date on UC Distribution process

---

Testing

• Will existing folders be buggy when we do this update? Will anything break?
• What happens when an existing folder is re-defaulted / test a scenario where user is trying to use these new features on an existing UC folder.

[TracyLinder]

Sync w/ Nate

• This will be assigned to Subha
• I scheduled a sync w/ Subha & Nate & Vish to discuss the build - 6/27/23

[TracyLinder]

Builder Huddle

• This folder process Initial Distribution is being used across multiple folders used by DSD; this update would affect the other folders as well. We must create a new process.

• Subha worried about removing the existing Initial Distribution Process.

• [x] We need a list of the franchise processes & their codes. @Nadin-Nader will ask Kyle

• [x] Tracy will schedule meeting w/ kyle to get the rest of the questions answered.

[TracyLinder]

Mtg Scheduled for Clarifications

• 6/30/23

[TracyLinder]

Stakeholder meeting for clarifications. 6/30/23

Tracy, Kyle, Jaclyn

Q: When should the UC Distribution process insert? 🔸

• When web acceptance is approved.

Q: Which process group should the UC Distribution process be in? 🔸

• Intake

Q: Should these attempts close any open attempts from the previous review cycle? 🔸

• Yes, close them.
• The permit case manager process 'rejected' closes out open reviews. But just in case this process isn't followed, we can add the functionality here.

Q: How does the current Initial Distribution process get closed?

• When the attempt 'Complete' is saved, the process status updates to Closed, but the process keeps working.
• They use it over and over, and it always works.
• There's no to-end date.

Q: Does the process need any start/end date functionality?

• No, can't think of a reason.
• Ask Pepper during DEV demo

Q: Automated Emails 🔸

The customer needs to know that the review cycle has started, which reviews were inserted, and the review end date.

• All the attempts need an email to the customer. However, initial is already getting an email from the Permit Completeness Check process. This ticket will focus on the 3 redistribution attempts. Redistribute All - AULCC MEETING REQUIRED - The email needs to include the meeting requirement & date. Redistribute No Franchise - NO AULCC MEETING - The email needs to inform that the customer isn't required to attend the AULCC meeting. Redistribute Rejected - NO AULCC MEETING - The email needs to inform that the customer isn't required to attend the AULCC meeting.

Tasks:

• [x] Jaclyn will send Tracy the excel doc she uses to track the system emails. 💜
• [ ] Tracy to ask @vschandramouli to create the email templates.
• [x] Tracy update acceptance criteria with new information.
• [x] Kyle will compile a list of the franchise processes & their codes.

1. Apply for UC online. (Use ATD as COS department to avoid fees)
2. Update all reviews on info tab to NO
3. Accept Web Acceptance
4. Save 'Complete' on Initial Distribution. Document all processes inserted they're all franchise

[TracyLinder]

Question: Should redistribution processes not save unless an initial has been saved already/previously?

• I sent teams chat to Kyle & Jaclyn: For redistributions, should the system check that an initial has already been done? If there is no initial distribution, do you want the system to throw an error message like "Initial distribution has not been performed"?

[TracyLinder]

Vish is out until 7/6, so I'll need to either put the email content together myself, or ask Jaclyn or Kyle.

[KyleErich]

List of Franchise Utility processes & their codes in the UC folder: • 51139 Alpheus (El Paso Global) • 51142 AT&T (SWBT) • 51143 AT&T Legacy • 51144 AT&T Metro • 51146 CenturyLink (Qwest) • 51147 CyrusOne • 51148 Chevron Pipeline • 51149 Blue Bonnet Electric • 51172 Crown Castle (NextG) • 51183 FiberLight • 51184 FiberNet • 51214 Kinder Morgan Pipeline • 51216 Grande Communications • 51217 Google Fiber Texas • 51218 Level3 Communications • 51219 LCRA • 51248 ONCOR • 51249 Pedernales Electric • 51279 Sprint • 51306 TelePacific (Telwest) • 51307 Time Warner Cable • 51308 TW Telecom • 51309 Texas Gas Service • 51336 XO Communications • 51337 Verizon (MCI) • 51338 Zayo • 51339 ZNET (Duct system)

[TracyLinder]

Q: Should these attempts close any open attempts from the previous review cycle?

• No, the reviewer needs to complete all reviews, even if the cycles start piling up.

[TracyLinder]

Need to have one more AC review meeting: Pepper, Jaclyn, Kyle, Homer, Vish, Subha

• [x] Tracy will schedule

[TracyLinder]

Mtg scheduled for this Thursday, 8/3 at 11am

[TracyLinder]

Final AC Review 8/8/23

Participants: Jaclyn, Greg P, Vish, Subha, Kyle, Homer

Agenda

• [x] Review the criteria in the issue description & make updates
• [x] Be sure Subha gives her tech perspective
• [x] Ask if we can close #12524

Notes

• [x] Add to AC: When redistribution date feature is used, the system should insert the date value into the folder info AULCC Meeting Date Need info code
• [ ] The list of franchise processes needs to be updated. Create an issue for this to develop separately
• [x] Rename Redistribution End Date to Review Due Date

[TracyLinder]

Still need to scope automated emails

The customer needs to know that the review cycle has started, which reviews were inserted, and the review end date. All the attempts need an email to the customer. However, initial is already getting an email from the Permit Completeness Check process. This ticket will focus on the 3 redistribution attempts.

• Redistribute All - AULCC MEETING REQUIRED - The email needs to include the meeting requirement & date.
• Redistribute No Franchise - NO AULCC MEETING - The email needs to inform that the customer isn't required to attend the AULCC meeting.
• Redistribute Rejected - NO AULCC MEETING - The email needs to inform that the customer isn't required to attend the AULCC meeting.

[TracyLinder]

Scheduled meeting: UC Distribution Updates - Emails & Legacy

• 8/14/23

[TracyLinder]

Scoping 8/14/23

• Jaclyn sent me a list of the automated emails and when they go out. Pepper would like to validate that it's still accurate.
• We're thinking there will be 2 templates, one with AULCC meeting, and one without.

Content

To: All people records on the people tab EXCEPT any that begin with 'Previous' From: Noreply

Subject Line: Project Name [F.foldername], Reference ID[f.referencenumber], Permit ID [22-12345678-UC and ROWID/RSN [ROWID]

Hello:

Thank you for your submittal to the Austin Utility Location and Coordination Committee (AULCC). Your Utility Coordination (UC) submittal has been distributed for review. You can view the assigned reviewers and due dates on the AB+C Portal. The list of reviewers is at the bottom of the page in the Permit Workflow section.

Your AULCC Meeting date is: 24-MAY-23

Meeting Location: Meeting Online via Microsoft Teams. You will receive an email invitation with the Teams link and optional call-in number at a later date. Meeting Starts: 2pm

Please review your information for completeness and correctness. If any data needs to be revised, added, or deleted please //// the SmartSheet. SMART SHEET NEEDS TO BE UPDATED BEFORE THIS EMAIL IS LIVE

~contact: Jaclyn.Lozano@austintexas.gov and AULCC@austintexas.gov~

AULCC Tracking Number #:UCC-230105-04-04

ROWID: 13047379

Project Name:STX-TFC Capitol Complex Phase 2-Site Utilities

Applicant: Peta-anne Donn

Project Contact: Peta-anne Donn

Project Description: The applicant is proposing the abandonment and removal of existing utility mains, as well as construction of new utility mains within the Right of Way of 15th Street between Colorado Street and Congress Avenue, 16th Street between Lavaca Street and Congress Avenue, and Lavaca Street, Colorado Street and Congress Avenue between 15th and 16th Streets for the TFC Capitol Complex Phase 2 project. All abandoned and proposed utilities are approximate.

1. Once the Project is reviewed, please begin a Spreadsheet or Minutes Sheet to record resposes, identify areas of conflict, and note proposed resolutions.

• Projects that have been through the AULCC previously, must contain all utility comments from previous reviews. The Minutes tab, or a Conflict/Resolution spreadsheet should be utilized for this effort.

• Final review and clearance will be contingent on final review of the Conflict/Resolution Data and concurrence form the Project Engineer, Project Manager, Project Owner, and the AULCC Chairman.

2. A Final AULCC Clearance Letter will be granted to the Project once all the conflicts have been identified, and resolution has been verified. This letter will be required for General Permit, or Site Plan submittal to the Development Services Department Intake office on the 4th floor of One Texas Center.

CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.

[TracyLinder]

Next steps as of 8/14/23

1. Pepper & Jaclyn meeting on Friday 8/18 to iron out the email content
2. Subha can begin working on this.
3. We'll circle back with stakeholders to finish the AC for the emails.

@vschandramouli could you take lead on finishing the email content work with Greg & Jaclyn please? I think another 30 minutes with them next week should do.

[TracyLinder]

Builder Huddle 8/15/23

• Create another issue for the email features
• Create another issue for updating the franchise processes
• Subha thinks AC on this ticket is good for now, she will let us know when she has questions
• Do a weekly 30 minute retro on this after Subha starts
• Subha will be out for 6 working days around 8/28. She's hoping to get the config done before she leaves.
• Schedule initial demo for next Friday 8/25

[TracyLinder]

Initial demo scheduled for Monday 8/28

[SubhaShroff]

@Nadin-Nader @TracyLinder Here is the demo for this ticket. Please review and let me know your feedback. Thank you. In 1st part, I covered, Initial Distribution, Initial Distribution No Franchise attempts. I tried Redistribution also but then I went for 2nd part. So last 30 seconds can be skipped in this part. In 2nd part, I have covered Redistribution All, Redistribution No Franchise and Redistribute Rejected attempts.

https://github.com/cityofaustin/atd-data-tech/assets/51680715/31116248-9a83-4d3e-819f-6517dd52fb74

https://github.com/cityofaustin/atd-data-tech/assets/51680715/cca5e464-575a-4a4f-bac1-6644a0ca2a59

[TracyLinder]

Demo Notes

• Put the Review Due Date validation on the process info instead of the process attempt.
• For redistribution attempt, on 2nd video (2:20), the franchises added should have said review cycle 2. They said review cycle 1.
  • The review cycle number should always match the # of attempts on the process.
• Before system saves any of the 3 redistribution attempts, it should perform a validation against all review processes. If any are open the system should NOT save the attempt. It should instead show an error "Please make sure all open review processes are closed before redistribution."
• On Redistribute Rejected, the system should insert another process for those with Informal Update Req'd and Rejected. In the demo, AT&T Legacy should have been inserted with Redistribute Rejected.

[TracyLinder]

Stakeholder / Builder Sync 9/6/23

• Subha understands the 4 requested updates from the notes above.
• Subha will do updates and record demo for us to watch so we don't have to watch the system spin (local is extremely slow)
• Tracy will schedule next team review for after 9/11/23

[SubhaShroff]

@Nadin-Nader @TracyLinder Here is the demo attached for the feedback points given above. Please review.

https://github.com/cityofaustin/atd-data-tech/assets/51680715/625083dc-db4e-4eae-8ef0-de466fe1553d

[Nadin-Nader]

@SubhaShroff demo looks good. I have asked Kyle and Jaclyn to review the demo. Waiting on response

[Nadin-Nader]

@SubhaShroff I have sent this to the DevOps CM Team to be deployed to DEV under SCTASK0355146

[TracyLinder]

Stakeholder demo 9/12/23

• Demo looks great
• This is on it's way to DEV
• Subha will test in DEV and push to test when it's ready
• The team will regroup to do some UAT together, any time after 9/19

[TracyLinder]

Group UAT scheduled for Friday 9/22

[SubhaShroff]

@Nadin-Nader Completed the testing on DEV I found couple of things not right, I will need to fix those before sending it to TEST: WAA accepted attempt didn't add the UC distribution- instead added Initial Distribution. UC distribution is assigned to AW SER Application Discipline instead of Intake Staff unlike Initial Distribution Process.

[SubhaShroff]

12631- 42f9193099f0 - DEV Deployment Plan.docx @Nadin-Nader Please raise a DEV deployment request for 42f9193099f0 on my behalf. Thank you.

[Nadin-Nader]

@SubhaShroff this additional commit has been sent to the DevOps Team to be deployed to DEV under SCTASK0356206

[SubhaShroff]

Thank you @Nadin-Nader. SCTASK0356206 is served and I tested it on DEV. It works as expected. Here is the TEST deployment plan. Please raise TEST promotion request. 12631- e7d77fc74bc5-a46239ee6417-77dfe46c5bdc-42f9193099f0 TEST Deployment Plan.docx

[Nadin-Nader]

@SubhaShroff this has been sent to the DevOps CM Team to be deployed to TEST under SCTASK0356595

[SubhaShroff]

@Nadin-Nader Thank you for raising the request. Its deployed in TEST and I tested it. RSN - 13201179.

A question/observation: We have a validation added for all redistribute attempts - to close the all OPEN review processes. Does 'Application Review' process counts in these review processes as its under same process group? The validation I added counts this process also to be closed before adding any redistribute attempts.

[Nadin-Nader]

Sent a message to Kyle asking to UAT this on TEST. Waiting on response

[SubhaShroff]

@Nadin-Nader @TracyLinder Demo was given to Jaclyn/Nadin/Vishwa and call was recorded. Please suggest what do we do next with this ticket. But I just realized that I didn't test and demo how the old process(Initial Distribution) works if it was already added and Open. I tried testing it (RSN-13170846) on TEST now. Added Complete attempt (only one attempt was there for Initial Distribution Process). It closed and added the review processes including the franchise processes. The folder status is updated to In Review from Pending status. So, It should still work old way without any issues, if it is already added. Thanks.

[TracyLinder]

UC Team Sync on 9/25/23

• The automated emails are in draft currently, and UC team doesn't want this ticket to go to PROD without the automated emails on #13395
• I explained the existing UC folders should be tested to be sure nothing breaks. Also try redefaulting the folder.

[Nadin-Nader]

@SubhaShroff this has been sent to the DevOps CM Team to be deployed to DEV/TEST UNDER SCTASK0358592

[SubhaShroff]

Thank you @Nadin-Nader. The feedback fix is tested in TEST(RSN-13202121) after deployment. Its all set for UAT in TEST AMANDA. Otherwise the functionality scoped in the ticket was demoed and recorded, except that it was expecting Application Review process also to be closed to add any Redistribute attempts in UC distribution process. Now with this fix, Application Review process is excluded from that validation.

[Nadin-Nader]

Update:

Its ready on TEST. Demo also approved by Jaclyn. The plan was to promote to PROD along with emails tickets.. So waiting on that. If its ok to send to PROD

[Nadin-Nader]

Waiting on emails from UC Team

[SubhaShroff]

@Nadin-Nader @Lpriya-LIT I noticed recently, for UC distribution process, the attempts are removed accidentally by other's commit - e72965c6a23d9ef62a506de747267179619d10d9. Fixed and raised another commit-Add the deleted attempts to UC Distribution process. Please raise DEV/TEST request in one. I have spoken to George, I will give him the request. Thanks. 12631- 4ae4c7a26942231ddf2736d7c25ee163fa2a9a71- DEV TEST Deployment Plan.docx

[Lpriya-LIT]

@SubhaShroff Created DEv/Test deployment request , SCTASK0380376

[SubhaShroff]

Thank you @Lpriya-LIT. The attempts are back on process in both DEV/TEST. Now we can send this ticket along with 13395.

[SubhaShroff]

UC Team Sync on 9/25/23

• The automated emails are in draft currently, and UC team doesn't want this ticket to go to PROD without the automated emails on UC Distribution Process Emails (11/29 Sprint) (SS) (Deploying to PROD) #13395
• I explained the existing UC folders should be tested to be sure nothing breaks. Also try redefaulting the folder.

@Nadin-Nader @TracyLinder Since 13395 is ready to go to PROD, can we send this ticket as well ?

[Nadin-Nader]

@SubhaShroff this has been sent to the DevOps CM Team to be deployed to PROD under SCTASK0392131

[Nadin-Nader]

@SubhaShroff this has been deployed to PROD with #13395, i will let Kyle and Jaclyn know

[TracyLinder]

@SubhaShroff @Nadin-Nader there is a bug report with this promote. Can you please take a look?

[Nadin-Nader]

@SubhaShroff @TracyLinder the bug fix has been sent to the DevOps CM Team to be deployed to DEV under SCTASK0393779

[SubhaShroff]

Thank you @Nadin-Nader. I tested it on DEV. Its not adding any reviewers to Franchise review processes. Please deploy this in TEST. 12631- f039fb53bf66a4a863a1b341a7077256b9d99fbf- TEST Deployment Plan.docx

[Nadin-Nader]

@SubhaShroff this has been sent to the DevOps CM Team to be deployed to TEST under SCTASK0394159

[SubhaShroff]

@Nadin-Nader The fix is in TEST and tested. Please review and let me know if we can send this to PROD. Thanks. RSN - 13206729.

[KyleErich]

@SubhaShroff @Nadin-Nader UAT on TEST approved. Ready for PROD promotion.