Page Comparison

TIS

Before 27th:

With new test codes (1-1P9Y9QH = “NHSE Education Yorkshire and The Humber”, 1-1P9Y9R1 = “NHSE Education North West”):

1. TIS-Reference: update reference.DBC in STAGE only, inactivating one DBC and creating a similar-name replacement, for the other updating the dbc field.

2. TIS-Profile: create/modify test users with the updated DBCs in the UserDesignatedBody table in STAGE only

3. TIS-TCS: update class DesignatedBodyMapper to have new codes in addition to existing ones, using (e.g. environment to use new DBC values

Outcome: Warm fuzzy feeling that if a user is assigned new DBCs they still see the information associated with the HEE names.

Hypothesis: Changing the DBC does not affect what I see in TIS.

Test:

1. Record names/records visible before & after. We should see no difference.

2. Functionality: Create Programme*, Posts, Placements, People still work for Local Office

*This (programme create) is the one that definitely has restrictions

w/c 27th:

1. TIS-Reference: update reference.DBC , either inactivating existing DBCs and creating new ones or updating the dbc field.

2. TIS-Profile: update UserDesignatedBody table *merge PR. N.B. This will break some functionality in the stage environment

3. Update DesignatedBodyMapper and similar classes to have new codes {in addition to|instead of} existing ones, using (e.g. environment to use new DBC values

   1. TIS-TCS

   2. TIS-REFERENCE although, this doesn’t appear critical for the admin functionality tested

4. List the changes on TIS, UserManagement and Bulk upload and inform admin users.

5. ?Invalidate Sessions in a way that allows Bulk Upload, ESR and other App users to compensate?

Later (or never?):

1. TIS-Reference: update reference.DBC.name and ???reference.DBC.abbr???, reference.LocalOffice , reference.trusttable

2. TIS-Profile: update UserDesignatedBody table

3. TIS-TCS:

   1. update tcs.Programme , tcs.Post table

   2. update tcs.PersonOwner table by PersonOwnerRebuildJob in Sync service

4. List the changes on TIS, UserManagement and Bulk upload and inform admin users.

Revalidation

Before 27th:

• Test new DBC by CURLing from STAGE-GREEN/BLUENEW:

• Test new DBCs by running through steps for w/c 27th:

  • TIS Stuff [Prerequisite, not in this estimate]

  • Add the new DBCs to parameter store:

    • the Recommendation

    • tis-revalidation-connection service (probably parameter store like recommendations)

  • Add the new DBCs to TIS-GMC-Client service

  • Add the DBCs to the reval FE

  • The GMC

N.B. More PRs/things to review and co-ordination with GMC compared to the change in TIS

Outcome: Warm fuzzy feeling that when a user is assigned new DBCs they can:

• still see the information associated with the HEE names.

• submit recommendations against new DBCs even if drafted against HEE DBCs

Hypothesis: Changing the DBC does not affect what I see in . The data from TIS does not need to be resent with the new DBCs.

Test:

1. Record names/records visible before & after (Under Notice & All Doctors). The only difference should be the 10 doctors for each DBC which have already been transferred.

2. Functionality:

   1. Draft recommendations (each) while assigned HEE DBCs

   2. Submit drafted recommendation and submit new recommendation

Modify job schedules to only run up until 25th March & then from 1st (or 3rd?) April*

*Pepe thinks this is really only valuable if we are maintaining some Reval functionality, i.e. Creating drafts & viewing data.

w/c 27th:

• Add the new DBCs to parameter store to map to the Recommendationused by Recommendation & GMC Client. --force-new-deployment update of the services to apply the configuration

• Add the new DBCs to TIS-GMC-Client service

• Add the new DBCs to tis-revalidation-connection service (probably parameter store like recommendations)

• Add the DBCs to the reval FE and deploy it *E2E tests will need to rely on old codes or be updated.

• ALSO (see “TIS” section) For Revalidation API calls to work:

  • the admin needs to have the correct DBC assigned in usermanagement/profile service

  • And the RO for that DBC needs to be correct (in User Management)

  • Modify/Add reference “DBC” data

“Later”:

Never?:

Legacy Revalidation

• Find the location where we need to accommodate the new DBC changes

• Can we use this as an opportunity to close down old reval? need to ask users

TIS

Before 27th:

With new test codes (1-1P9Y9QH = “NHSE Education Yorkshire and The Humber”, 1-1P9Y9R1 = “NHSE Education North West”):

1. TIS-Reference: update reference.DBC in STAGE only, inactivating one DBC and creating a similar-name replacement, for the other updating the dbc field.

2. TIS-Profile: create/modify test users with the updated DBCs in the UserDesignatedBody table in STAGE only

3. TIS-TCS: update class DesignatedBodyMapper to have new codes in addition to existing ones, using (e.g. environment to use new DBC values

Outcome: Warm fuzzy feeling that if a user is assigned new DBCs they still see the information associated with the HEE names.

Hypothesis: Changing the DBC does not affect what I see in TIS.

Test:

1. Record names/records visible before & after. We should see no difference.

2. Functionality: Create Programme*, Posts, Placements, People still work for Local Office

* This is the one that definitely has restrictions

w/c 27th:

1. TIS-Reference: update reference.DBC , either inactivating existing DBCs and creating new ones or updating the dbc field.

2. TIS-Profile: update UserDesignatedBody tableTIS-TCS: update class DesignatedBodyMapper

3. Update DesignatedBodyMapper and similar classes to have new codes {in addition to|instead of} existing ones, using (e.g. environment to use new DBC values

   1. TIS-TCS

   2. TIS-REFERENCE although, this doesn’t appear critical for the admin functionality tested

4. List the changes on TIS, UserManagement and Bulk upload and inform admin users.

Later (or never?):

1. TIS-Reference: update reference.DBC.name and ???reference.DBC.abbr???, reference.LocalOffice , reference.trusttable

2. TIS-Profile: update UserDesignatedBody table

3. TIS-TCS:

   1. update tcs.Programme , tcs.Post table

   2. update tcs.PersonOwner table by PersonOwnerRebuildJob in Sync service

4. List the changes on TIS, UserManagement and Bulk upload and inform admin users.

User Management

Should be okay when db tables of reference and profile are updated.: We need to update the “UserDesignatedBody”

Needs verification and investigation to see the DBCs reference elsewhere.

TSS

• Not expecting there to be any impact from Code-only changes

NDW

• Speak to the NDW Team about potential impact

  • Initial conversation with John Thompson on 17/02/23. A wider meeting with NDW Team taking place 20/02/2023.

  • Discussion on 20/02/2023 and 21/02/2023. Impact on NDW and Tableau users too great within the timescale. Agreed to attempt to delay the update to Programme.Owner and Post.Owner fields post 1st April through by only changing the DBCs in the reference table and mapping script. Also, the new Local Office names are not officially confirmed. Once the above TIS approach is confirmed will send comms to NDW and Tableau users/stakeholders.

• Coordinate with NDW of potential comms to regions and other downstream users of TIS data

ESR

Further investigation on how ESR communicate across the ?changes

Hicom Leave Manager

• Update TIS-Accent ETL to use or include the new Owner names

• Confirm with Hicom the impact on their ETL and Accent Leave Manager system changing DBCs/Owners would have and identify mitigating actions

  • 21/02/2023 email: Hicom are conducting their own impact assessment and communicate back once complete. To note, Hicom only use Programme.Owner

NDW-Tableau

• Identify scripts in the NDW which are or are a dependency for Tableau data sources which use DBC/Owner to extract relevant data

• Identify Tableau workbooks which use DBC/Owner to group, filter, etc

GMC - Educational Branch

• Met with Danial Smith, Jennifer Redman-Tootell and Andy Knapton at the GMC on 21/02/2023. No mitigation necessary for 2023 GMC NTS and no other pending impact from TIS. Agreed to share new organisation names and relating ODS codes when known.