Data Review Standards
Proposed Data Review Standards:
This process is established to ensure we have quality releases or as close to bug free releases as possible. After a Data Set has been vetted by the Publisher Liaison and License Review process, it must undergo a Separate Data Review by a Monkey OTHER THAN the one(s) that created the Data Set, this may be waived by the Content Silverback if the supply of Data Monkeys would not allow this to be possible. This is to assure that a fresh set of eyes are looking at the set and giving it an impartial review and proper feedback to complete the set.
Unstable Alpha Review
Unstable Alpha Review - These are sets that are in high demand, requiring community feedback and are likely going to stay in that state for an extended duration. [Example - Pathfinder Core Set and intertwined core supplements]
- Testers just confirm it will load up without breaking anything. Bugs ARE expected. This set WILL require a STABLE BETA REVIEW unless the Content Silverback deems the set to be stable.
Stable Beta Review
Stable Beta Review - This set should be 96%+ Complete; The Data Monkey feels this set is complete and ready for public use. Mainly, the 4% left would be missing items such as the source pages, formulas for spells might not all be present, little things that can be overlooked.
- Testers confirm it loads without Errors; PrettyLST issues are reviewed and confirmed to be false positives; Minimal Fact Checking against the original source material. The Tester will open each data file and using an Editor with Syntax Highlighting, review by hand for any obvious typos, errors in syntax, and anything that looks off. Any such discrepancies will be logged on the Tracker so the Monkey may respond and/or correct such items.
[In the terms of getting sets into the hands, the community is better at catching obvious bugs, typos, etc.]
Full Release Review
Full Release Review - This set has been Beta status for at least one stable release, or at the discretion of the Content Silverback in consultation with the data monkey and/or reviewing Monkey may bypass that requirement. The Data Monkey and Beta Review Monkey believe it is complete without bugs and accurate to the source material.
- Tester [Must be Data Chimp] needs to verify that it loads without errors; the source has no PrettyLST issues (Only false positives); The Source Material and Data match up - Formulas are correct. All data Objects are coded to the best of the ability for PCGen to be in compliance with the original source material, and if not accurate, complete documentation explaining WHY it cannot be supported and links to any Trackers that are required for future review to address the issues. Lack of Code Support does not negate the Full Release on the Data Side, but for this to be a FULL RELEASE any and all issues should have a DATA Tracker and dependent CODE Tracker for proper follow up. This review omits a thorough review for TYPOs in the source, instead it focuses on catching any Functionality Issues.
- NOTES: Thorough notes need to be made where we have coded something to match the source even though it violates the RAW of the core set (which is policy if an answer as to whether or not we should make it compliant cannot be obtained from the source owner).
- [Full Release Review is by far the most strenuous and labor intensive, it's almost like coding up another set in time dedicated]
OOC Releases
Special Mention of OOC [Out Of Cycle] - An OOC will always be released under one of the Two Alpha Designations. Only a set that has been part of the normal release in the alpha folder should qualify for Full Release Review.
