Hi @VirginiaPoundstone! Your review of this task's specifications and open questions would be much appreciated. Thank you! 🙏🏻

@Sarai-WMF: Do you think it's within the scope of this task to integrate this feedback from @kostajh about the "Compliance Requirements" section

I don't know what I'm supposed to input into "Compliance requirements" (it seems that "legal" or "gdpr" are options?)

?

In T380592#10932564, @phuedx wrote:

@Sarai-WMF: Do you think it's within the scope of this task to integrate this feedback from @kostajh about the "Compliance Requirements" section

I don't know what I'm supposed to input into "Compliance requirements" (it seems that "legal" or "gdpr" are options?)

?

That field will actually be removed in the new version of this section. This was a reaction to similar feedback! So, I guess we can consider it already integrated 👍🏻

@JVanderhoop-WMF I'm taking a look at this ticket and, according to its details, the Risk Level field might be set as Risk assessment pending. I have assumed that, because of that, users might want to save their instrument with that value in that field while that review is WIP/pending and modify the instrument later with the proper link (and then they will activate it). But I guess that, during that time, just in case we shouldn't allow them to activate the instrument. This situation is pretty related to a ticket we filed some time ago (T384707: [DRAFT] [UX recommendation] Allow saving incomplete configuration forms) in which we were exploring cases like this. So far all the relevant fields are considered as mandatory and the instrument cannot be save if they are not filled and, once you have saved the instrument, you can simply activated it (there is nothing that prevents you from doing it except when the start date is not 24 hours in the future).

So, do we want to make an exception for this case and allow Risk assessment pending as a value and prevent users from activating the instrument until that field is set to "low/medium/high" level? If not I guess we could ignore that value and set the field as mandatory with only the three different risk level as allowed values
cc @phuedx @cjming

sfaci opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/data-engineering/mpic/-/merge_requests/226

Draft: Improved Regulation Section

https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/data-engineering/mpic/-/merge_requests/226 is ready for review. It also includes T401366: xLab: Update Traffic/Sample rate section in the Read view for instruments and experiments

phuedx merged https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/data-engineering/mpic/-/merge_requests/226

Improved Regulation Section

This task has made some changes in he database, so an upgrade will need to be done where deploying this change on staging/production:

After taking a look at all the experiments registered on production, I have confirmed that all of them have been set as Low risk. Some of them have filled security_legal_review with ticket/doc to say that but it's not required so I think we can just set the right risk level and leave security_legal_review as empty.

// Change compliance_requirements column
ALTER TABLE instruments CHANGE COLUMN compliance_requirements risk_level VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL;
// Set all instruments as low risk (all published so far have been set with that level risk)
UPDATE instruments SET risk_level = 'Tier 3: Low risk';
// Set security_legal_review as empty for all instruments (all of them are low risk so they don't need to fill this field)
UPDATE instruments SET security_legal_review = '';

Change #1181111 had a related patch set uploaded (by Santiago Faci; author: Santiago Faci):

[operations/deployment-charts@master] xLab: Deploy v0.8.3 release to staging

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1181111

Change #1181111 merged by jenkins-bot:

[operations/deployment-charts@master] xLab: Deploy v0.8.3 release to staging

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1181111

sfaci opened https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/data-engineering/mpic/-/merge_requests/229

Fixed low risk message

cjming merged https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/data-engineering/mpic/-/merge_requests/229

Fixed low risk message

Change #1181773 had a related patch set uploaded (by Santiago Faci; author: Santiago Faci):

[operations/deployment-charts@master] xLab: Deploy v0.8.3 release to staging

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1181773

Change #1181773 merged by jenkins-bot:

[operations/deployment-charts@master] xLab: Deploy v0.8.4 release to staging

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1181773

Change #1182112 had a related patch set uploaded (by Santiago Faci; author: Santiago Faci):

[operations/deployment-charts@master] xLab: Deploy v0.8.4 release to production

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1182112

Change #1182112 merged by jenkins-bot:

[operations/deployment-charts@master] xLab: Deploy v0.8.4 release to production

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1182112

This work has been deployed and it's working as expected on production