Details

    • Testing Instructions:
      Hide

      enable activity completion at site and course level.
      Create a new SCORM package using the fruit quiz SCORM package here:
      http://moodle.org/mod/data/view.php?d=50&rid=1655
      tick the 2 new "Require status" checkboxes in the activity completion settings.
      enter the SCORM as a student - complete quiz (answer questions correctly) - then check activity completion status to make sure it is set to complete.

      Show
      enable activity completion at site and course level. Create a new SCORM package using the fruit quiz SCORM package here: http://moodle.org/mod/data/view.php?d=50&rid=1655 tick the 2 new "Require status" checkboxes in the activity completion settings. enter the SCORM as a student - complete quiz (answer questions correctly) - then check activity completion status to make sure it is set to complete.
    • Affected Branches:
      MOODLE_20_STABLE, MOODLE_22_STABLE
    • Fixed Branches:
      MOODLE_23_STABLE
    • Pull Master Branch:
      master_MDL-27469
    • Rank:
      17133

      Description

      activity Completion in SCORM should allow settings based on cmi.core.lesson_status and other grading related stuff.

      We're expecting a patch from Totara that improves this.

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          adding Aaron to this - any eta on a patch from you guys for this?

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - adding Aaron to this - any eta on a patch from you guys for this?
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          thanks Aaron - why does that patch add the introformat field in upgrade.php? - that should already be there?

          also - can you add the new fields to the backup/restore scripts too?

          otherwise looks good to me!

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - thanks Aaron - why does that patch add the introformat field in upgrade.php? - that should already be there? also - can you add the new fields to the backup/restore scripts too? otherwise looks good to me!
          Hide
          Aaron Barnes added a comment -

          Fixed the issues mentioned, could you give this another test please Dan? Cheers.

          Show
          Aaron Barnes added a comment - Fixed the issues mentioned, could you give this another test please Dan? Cheers.
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          Thanks Aaron - doesn't look like I'll get a chance to test this properly until I get back from Leave - in the meantime if you manage to convince someone from HQ to peer review I'm happy for it to be submitted for integration.

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - Thanks Aaron - doesn't look like I'll get a chance to test this properly until I get back from Leave - in the meantime if you manage to convince someone from HQ to peer review I'm happy for it to be submitted for integration.
          Hide
          Matteo Scaramuccia added a comment -

          Hi,
          I'm interested in getting in touch with the new Moodle Activity Completion feature: the patch proposal has given me a big help in quickly pinpointing a first picture of this framework.

          That being said - i.e. I'm a newbie in Activity Completion - let me present my point of view in two different areas.

          1st: SCORM specs: code QAing
          It seems the patch to unbalance/"break" the presumed overall behaviour in 2004 compared with 1.2: https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L5R1161 takes care of completion but in 2004 that CMI element is just telling about completion status while successful status is available using the CMI element cmi.success_status, opposite to 1.2 in which both concepts are available through the same CMI element, cmi.core.lesson_status.
          Therefore I suggest to add to the really clean patch proposal:

          ...
                       'cmi.completion_status',
          +            'cmi.success_status',
                       'cmi.core.score.raw',
                       'cmi.score.raw'
          ...
          

          https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L5R1181:

          -            if (!in_array($track->element, array('cmi.core.lesson_status', 'cmi.completion_status')))  {
          +            if (!in_array($track->element, array('cmi.core.lesson_status', 'cmi.completion_status', 'cmi.success_status'))) {
          

          https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L6R418:

          -        (($element == 'cmi.core.lesson_status' || $element == 'cmi.completion_status') && in_array($track->value, array('completed', 'passed', 'failed')))) {
          +        (($element == 'cmi.core.lesson_status' || $element == 'cmi.completion_status' || $element == 'cmi.success_status') && in_array($track->value, array('completed', 'passed', 'failed')))) {
          

          Maybe the order in which Moodle will update cmi.*_status could affect the evaluation with some set of completions rules too: it seems no (https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L0R1327) if the two CMI elements will be always written one just after the other.
          Quite similar reasoning for https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L5R1203: cmi.score.raw should/could be replaced with cmi.score.scaled - taking care that scaled means -1..1 and not cmi.score.min..cmi.score.max - since the latter is used in SCORM 2004 against mastery score and it is used in comparison with Minimum Normalized Measure in the Activity Tree (Sequencing Rules). This will balance the expected "mastery score" behaviour for SCORM 1.2, cmi.core.score.raw vs cmi.student_data.mastery_score.

          2nd: SCORM 2004 and Completion
          Generally speaking the big difference in SCORM 2004 is that we can now talk about the status at the Course level, entirely managed by the author of the package thanks to the Rollup Rules and other magics of the complex world of SCORM 2004. Shortly: I'm wondering if a SCORM 2004 activity should be the exclusive owner of evaluating its completion status whilst SCORM 1.2 must be always driven with the current patch proposal 'cause of it lacks of rules to get a status at the Course (the parent of all SCOes) level. My strong proposal should require Moodle to fully implement SCORM 2004 and Content Developers to fully implement SCORM 2004 principles, starting with considering cmi.score.scaled too, mostly equal to cmi.score.raw/(cmi.score.max - cmi.score.min). Not to mention that in a SCORM 2004 package there is a big amount of default values in the imsmanifest.xml file even if you'are not seeing them in the XML: they will always drive many interesting elements out of the CMI datamodel managed by the SCO.

          In summary: fell free of QAing my code review at point 1: cmi.score.scaled could be IMHO a valuable option but please add also a note in the help string to underline that for SCORM 2004 package the value should be -1..1.
          Keep point 2 out of this "QA sprint" but keep it in mind eventually for further analysis in a future release or, better, for documenting the behaviour of Activity Completion with SCORM 2004 packages to avoid unexpected completion results after its first release.

          Things above in order to be ready when, one day, Moodle will happily run any kind (read: complex simple sequencing rules set) of SCORM 2004 content .

          HTH,
          Matteo

          Show
          Matteo Scaramuccia added a comment - Hi, I'm interested in getting in touch with the new Moodle Activity Completion feature: the patch proposal has given me a big help in quickly pinpointing a first picture of this framework. That being said - i.e. I'm a newbie in Activity Completion - let me present my point of view in two different areas. 1st: SCORM specs: code QAing It seems the patch to unbalance/"break" the presumed overall behaviour in 2004 compared with 1.2: https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L5R1161 takes care of completion but in 2004 that CMI element is just telling about completion status while successful status is available using the CMI element cmi.success_status , opposite to 1.2 in which both concepts are available through the same CMI element, cmi.core.lesson_status . Therefore I suggest to add to the really clean patch proposal: ... 'cmi.completion_status', + 'cmi.success_status', 'cmi.core.score.raw', 'cmi.score.raw' ... https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L5R1181: - if (!in_array($track->element, array('cmi.core.lesson_status', 'cmi.completion_status'))) { + if (!in_array($track->element, array('cmi.core.lesson_status', 'cmi.completion_status', 'cmi.success_status'))) { https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L6R418: - (($element == 'cmi.core.lesson_status' || $element == 'cmi.completion_status') && in_array($track->value, array('completed', 'passed', 'failed')))) { + (($element == 'cmi.core.lesson_status' || $element == 'cmi.completion_status' || $element == 'cmi.success_status') && in_array($track->value, array('completed', 'passed', 'failed')))) { Maybe the order in which Moodle will update cmi.*_status could affect the evaluation with some set of completions rules too: it seems no ( https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L0R1327 ) if the two CMI elements will be always written one just after the other. Quite similar reasoning for https://github.com/totara/moodle/commit/45fb80c004869ecdb35d9f2903b4720fabb372dd#L5R1203: cmi.score.raw should/could be replaced with cmi.score.scaled - taking care that scaled means -1..1 and not cmi.score.min..cmi.score.max - since the latter is used in SCORM 2004 against mastery score and it is used in comparison with Minimum Normalized Measure in the Activity Tree (Sequencing Rules). This will balance the expected "mastery score" behaviour for SCORM 1.2, cmi.core.score.raw vs cmi.student_data.mastery_score . 2nd: SCORM 2004 and Completion Generally speaking the big difference in SCORM 2004 is that we can now talk about the status at the Course level, entirely managed by the author of the package thanks to the Rollup Rules and other magics of the complex world of SCORM 2004. Shortly: I'm wondering if a SCORM 2004 activity should be the exclusive owner of evaluating its completion status whilst SCORM 1.2 must be always driven with the current patch proposal 'cause of it lacks of rules to get a status at the Course (the parent of all SCOes) level. My strong proposal should require Moodle to fully implement SCORM 2004 and Content Developers to fully implement SCORM 2004 principles, starting with considering cmi.score.scaled too, mostly equal to cmi.score.raw/(cmi.score.max - cmi.score.min) . Not to mention that in a SCORM 2004 package there is a big amount of default values in the imsmanifest.xml file even if you'are not seeing them in the XML: they will always drive many interesting elements out of the CMI datamodel managed by the SCO. In summary: fell free of QAing my code review at point 1: cmi.score.scaled could be IMHO a valuable option but please add also a note in the help string to underline that for SCORM 2004 package the value should be -1..1 . Keep point 2 out of this "QA sprint" but keep it in mind eventually for further analysis in a future release or, better, for documenting the behaviour of Activity Completion with SCORM 2004 packages to avoid unexpected completion results after its first release. Things above in order to be ready when, one day, Moodle will happily run any kind (read: complex simple sequencing rules set) of SCORM 2004 content . HTH, Matteo
          Hide
          Dan Poltawski added a comment -

          Ping. I notice this has been waiting for peer review for a while.

          Show
          Dan Poltawski added a comment - Ping. I notice this has been waiting for peer review for a while.
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          I've included some of Matteo's reccomendations around support for 2004 packages and removed the handling of "failed" packages as this didn't look quite complete and can be added back later once this part of the patch lands in core.

          Also - I have a feeling we might need to add an admin setting to control whether a failed response should end up in a grade update - I think this may adversely affect the way people expect when new attempts are generated.

          This patch doesn't implement full support for SCORM 2004 completion but Moodle doesn't currently support 2004 packages and when we finally finish this off we can revisit activity completion to make sure it is operating as expected.

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - I've included some of Matteo's reccomendations around support for 2004 packages and removed the handling of "failed" packages as this didn't look quite complete and can be added back later once this part of the patch lands in core. Also - I have a feeling we might need to add an admin setting to control whether a failed response should end up in a grade update - I think this may adversely affect the way people expect when new attempts are generated. This patch doesn't implement full support for SCORM 2004 completion but Moodle doesn't currently support 2004 packages and when we finally finish this off we can revisit activity completion to make sure it is operating as expected.
          Hide
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment -

          The main moodle.git repository has just been updated with latest weekly modifications. You may wish to rebase your PULL branches to simplify history and avoid any possible merge conflicts. This would also make integrator's life easier next week.

          TIA and ciao

          Show
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment - The main moodle.git repository has just been updated with latest weekly modifications. You may wish to rebase your PULL branches to simplify history and avoid any possible merge conflicts. This would also make integrator's life easier next week. TIA and ciao
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          rebased

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - rebased
          Hide
          Aparup Banerjee added a comment -

          just pushing this through for Ankit to peer-review

          Show
          Aparup Banerjee added a comment - just pushing this through for Ankit to peer-review
          Hide
          Aparup Banerjee added a comment -

          Ankit, please peer-review this when you've got a moment.

          Show
          Aparup Banerjee added a comment - Ankit, please peer-review this when you've got a moment.
          Hide
          Ankit Agarwal added a comment -

          Hi Guys,
          The patch looks great. +1 to integrate.
          one small issue that I was able to find was:-

          But that should not stop this patch from getting integrated IMO

          Thanks

          Show
          Ankit Agarwal added a comment - Hi Guys, The patch looks great. +1 to integrate. one small issue that I was able to find was:- we are now following strict rules related to phpdocs, @access uses seems a bit redundant Ref:- http://docs.moodle.org/dev/Coding_style#.40access But that should not stop this patch from getting integrated IMO Thanks
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          thanks ankit - removed those and re-submitted.

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - thanks ankit - removed those and re-submitted.
          Hide
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment -

          The integration of this issue has been delayed to next week because the integration period is over (Monday, Tuesday) and testing must happen on Wednesday, with point releases happening next week based on current status.

          This change to a more rigid timeframe on each integration/testing cycle aims to produce a better and clear separation and organization of tasks for everybody.

          This is a bulk-automated message, so if you want to blame somebody/thing/where, don't do it here (use git instead) :-D :-P

          Apologizes for the inconvenient, this will be integrated next week. Thanks for your collaboration & ciao

          Show
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment - The integration of this issue has been delayed to next week because the integration period is over (Monday, Tuesday) and testing must happen on Wednesday, with point releases happening next week based on current status. This change to a more rigid timeframe on each integration/testing cycle aims to produce a better and clear separation and organization of tasks for everybody. This is a bulk-automated message, so if you want to blame somebody/thing/where, don't do it here (use git instead) :-D :-P Apologizes for the inconvenient, this will be integrated next week. Thanks for your collaboration & ciao
          Hide
          Ray Lawrence added a comment -

          Hi,

          I've lost my way with this a little i.e. what's the practical impact for end users of this change? Does this 1.2 or 2004 only?

          Ray

          Show
          Ray Lawrence added a comment - Hi, I've lost my way with this a little i.e. what's the practical impact for end users of this change? Does this 1.2 or 2004 only? Ray
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          Hi Ray,

          Not all SCORM packages return a grade but most return a "status" - passed/failed/complete etc...

          This patch allows the activity completion settings to look at that "custom" scorm data instead of just looking at the grade returned.

          SCORM 2004 stores this information in a slightly different way from SCORM 1.2 so I don't expect the patch will function correctly for "all" SCORM 2004 packages - but the existing grade option should still work fine.

          SCORM 2004 support isn't complete either - so it's possible other 2004 specific bugs will affect grading/completion too - once we finish the SCORM 2004 work we can revisit this feature to see if it functions with all 2004 packages.

          FYI - I'm hoping to run another SCORM GSOC project this year - if you know of any students with good javascript/php knowledge, make sure you ask them to apply (If Moodle is accepted as a GSOC org!)
          see: http://docs.moodle.org/dev/Projects_for_new_developers

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - Hi Ray, Not all SCORM packages return a grade but most return a "status" - passed/failed/complete etc... This patch allows the activity completion settings to look at that "custom" scorm data instead of just looking at the grade returned. SCORM 2004 stores this information in a slightly different way from SCORM 1.2 so I don't expect the patch will function correctly for "all" SCORM 2004 packages - but the existing grade option should still work fine. SCORM 2004 support isn't complete either - so it's possible other 2004 specific bugs will affect grading/completion too - once we finish the SCORM 2004 work we can revisit this feature to see if it functions with all 2004 packages. FYI - I'm hoping to run another SCORM GSOC project this year - if you know of any students with good javascript/php knowledge, make sure you ask them to apply (If Moodle is accepted as a GSOC org!) see: http://docs.moodle.org/dev/Projects_for_new_developers
          Hide
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment -

          Some hours ago...

          the main moodle.git repository has been updated with latest weekly modifications. You may wish to rebase your PULL branches to simplify history and avoid any possible merge conflicts. This would also make integrator's life easier next week.

          TIA and ciao

          Show
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment - Some hours ago... the main moodle.git repository has been updated with latest weekly modifications. You may wish to rebase your PULL branches to simplify history and avoid any possible merge conflicts. This would also make integrator's life easier next week. TIA and ciao
          Hide
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment -

          Hi Dan, et all. I don't have anything against this to land, just one question and a reason to delay it for a week:

          1) Q: the change @ completionlib (https://github.com/danmarsden/moodle/compare/master...master_MDL-27469#L0R1334) is ok, yup? Not sure why but I did not expect any change there.
          2) This week we are finishing to integrate some changes in the XMLDB definitions, related with the "UNSIGNED" attribute (we are killing it) and also TEXT lengths. So I think I'm going to reopen this in order to allow you, once current week is sent upstream, to:

          A) open, load and save the xml definitions. It will take rid of those unsigned and text lengths.
          B) raise moodle requirements to this weekly version, so you cannot use SORM with older versions of Moodle.
          C) verify that upgrade continues working there (note that we have not changed the upgrade api, so the unsigned and text lengths continue being present there, although 100% ignored.

          So I'm reopening this is order to achieve those points and the Q. Feel free to resend it to integration next week... thanks and ciao

          Show
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment - Hi Dan, et all. I don't have anything against this to land, just one question and a reason to delay it for a week: 1) Q: the change @ completionlib ( https://github.com/danmarsden/moodle/compare/master...master_MDL-27469#L0R1334 ) is ok, yup? Not sure why but I did not expect any change there. 2) This week we are finishing to integrate some changes in the XMLDB definitions, related with the "UNSIGNED" attribute (we are killing it) and also TEXT lengths. So I think I'm going to reopen this in order to allow you, once current week is sent upstream, to: A) open, load and save the xml definitions. It will take rid of those unsigned and text lengths. B) raise moodle requirements to this weekly version, so you cannot use SORM with older versions of Moodle. C) verify that upgrade continues working there (note that we have not changed the upgrade api, so the unsigned and text lengths continue being present there, although 100% ignored. So I'm reopening this is order to achieve those points and the Q. Feel free to resend it to integration next week... thanks and ciao
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          Aaron might be best to answer on point 1 as he wrote the patch. Aaron are there other modules/activities that can/will use this function?

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - Aaron might be best to answer on point 1 as he wrote the patch. Aaron are there other modules/activities that can/will use this function?
          Hide
          Aaron Barnes added a comment -

          Hi Eloy,

          The reason I put the function in completionlib is it is generic enough that another activity might wish to use it also

          Cheers,
          Aaron

          Show
          Aaron Barnes added a comment - Hi Eloy, The reason I put the function in completionlib is it is generic enough that another activity might wish to use it also Cheers, Aaron
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          updated as requested and pushing again.

          note - I've used this weeks moodle version in requires as If I bump it higher before the moodle version is bumped in /version.php it will fail install.
          NOTE TO INTEGRATOR - if you bump moodle version.php before integrating this patch, please increase requires to the new version during integration. Thanks.

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - updated as requested and pushing again. note - I've used this weeks moodle version in requires as If I bump it higher before the moodle version is bumped in /version.php it will fail install. NOTE TO INTEGRATOR - if you bump moodle version.php before integrating this patch, please increase requires to the new version during integration. Thanks.
          Hide
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment -

          The main moodle.git repository has just been updated with latest weekly modifications. You may wish to rebase your PULL branches to simplify history and avoid any possible merge conflicts. This would also make integrator's life easier next week.

          TIA and ciao

          Show
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment - The main moodle.git repository has just been updated with latest weekly modifications. You may wish to rebase your PULL branches to simplify history and avoid any possible merge conflicts. This would also make integrator's life easier next week. TIA and ciao
          Hide
          Petr Škoda added a comment -

          to integrators:

          • TYPE="text" LENGTH="small" was deprecated recently, texts have only big size now, it should be completely omitted
          Show
          Petr Škoda added a comment - to integrators: TYPE="text" LENGTH="small" was deprecated recently, texts have only big size now, it should be completely omitted
          Hide
          Dan Poltawski added a comment -

          Petr: I just loaded, opened and saved the xmldb defintion in the XMLDB editor and it did not change those values as suggested by Eloy above. Is this a bug?

          Dan: I assumed you tried as Eloy suggested..

          Show
          Dan Poltawski added a comment - Petr: I just loaded, opened and saved the xmldb defintion in the XMLDB editor and it did not change those values as suggested by Eloy above. Is this a bug? Dan: I assumed you tried as Eloy suggested..
          Hide
          Dan Poltawski added a comment - - edited

          Ignore my last comment - this change hasn't been rebased ontop of latest master thats why those changes haven't been included and the install.xml file isn't being changed in my test.

          Dan - are you able to rebase?

          Show
          Dan Poltawski added a comment - - edited Ignore my last comment - this change hasn't been rebased ontop of latest master thats why those changes haven't been included and the install.xml file isn't being changed in my test. Dan - are you able to rebase?
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          yep - rebased - thanks.

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - yep - rebased - thanks.
          Hide
          Dan Poltawski added a comment -

          Thanks Dan.

          I've integrated this now.

          Show
          Dan Poltawski added a comment - Thanks Dan. I've integrated this now.
          Hide
          Dan Poltawski added a comment -

          I've tested the upgrade as well as the functionality - this looks good!

          thanks

          Show
          Dan Poltawski added a comment - I've tested the upgrade as well as the functionality - this looks good! thanks
          Hide
          Sam Hemelryk added a comment -

          Congratulations are in order, you've made it, or at least your code has!
          It's now part of Moodle and both the git and cvs repositories have been updated.

          This issue is being marked as fixed and closed.

          Thank you.

          Show
          Sam Hemelryk added a comment - Congratulations are in order, you've made it, or at least your code has! It's now part of Moodle and both the git and cvs repositories have been updated. This issue is being marked as fixed and closed. Thank you.
          Hide
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment -

          hehe, manual editing install.xml files, eh!

          The new, more rigorous validations introduced by MDL-32112, are causing this BOOM!

          <FIELD NAME="completionstatusrequired" ...... DEFAULT="null" ......
          <FIELD NAME="completionscorerequired" ...... DEFAULT="null" ......
          

          WTF DEFAULT="null". Plz, always use the XMLDB editor!

          Ciao

          Show
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment - hehe, manual editing install.xml files, eh! The new, more rigorous validations introduced by MDL-32112 , are causing this BOOM! <FIELD NAME= "completionstatusrequired" ...... DEFAULT= " null " ...... <FIELD NAME= "completionscorerequired" ...... DEFAULT= " null " ...... WTF DEFAULT="null". Plz, always use the XMLDB editor! Ciao
          Hide
          Dan Marsden added a comment -

          I did - I opened and resaved twice using xmldb editor - the editor rules happened to change twice during the process of this bug so I did it twice. - perhaps the editor changed again in the same week or didn't strip it out correctly?

          Show
          Dan Marsden added a comment - I did - I opened and resaved twice using xmldb editor - the editor rules happened to change twice during the process of this bug so I did it twice. - perhaps the editor changed again in the same week or didn't strip it out correctly?
          Hide
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment -

          Who cares, MDL-32202 has fixed this. Thanks!

          Show
          Eloy Lafuente (stronk7) added a comment - Who cares, MDL-32202 has fixed this. Thanks!
          Hide
          Mary Cooch added a comment - - edited

          updated docs re SCORM activity completion and removed docs_required label.

          Show
          Mary Cooch added a comment - - edited updated docs re SCORM activity completion and removed docs_required label.

            People

            • Votes:
              10 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              13 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: