View source for Freeing up work on pre-2018 secondary documents

__FORCETOC__

==Method==

Find a pre-2018 secondary document that is not available for update.

Is the update timeline showing as light green?  This indicates that some <strong>secondary effects research</strong> may need to be done on its pre-2012 affecting documents.  (NB From the beginning of 2012 onwards all extended TOES information for affecting docs should be captured in the (blue) prep tasks and so do not require a separate (green) research task.)

Look at <strong>TOES</strong> to see which affecting documents require research:

<nowiki>https://editorial.legislation.gov.uk/changes/affected/<type>/<year>/<number>/data.xls?extended=full-with-co</nowiki>

Complete research and/or review as required.  The update timeline should then show dark green.  If it does not, you may need to <strong>regenerate the timeline</strong> by going to the update page More menu in Admin and clicking the appropriate button.

http://community.legislation.gov.uk/mediawiki/index.php?title=Research_Tasks/Secondary_Effects_Research

If the update timeline is still light green, there may be a <strong>duplicate effect</strong> in TOES where the old unresearched data and new researched data for an effect sit side by side (possibly resulting from a row being entirely deleted and then re-added during research) which will require a <strong>TOES correction</strong> to resolve.

If the update timeline is dark green, is there a <strong>red warning message</strong> showing beneath it?

There are two main red messages:

The document may have been put <strong>on hold</strong> because it may have an issue with <strong>concurrent/duplicate ids</strong>.

The document may be <strong>on hold</strong> because it has <strong>no revised version</strong> yet and needs to be initial edited to create one.  (NB There may be an amber message saying that it requires Welsh language initial edit, but this does not stop us from allocating English language update).

If it is on hold due to concurrent/duplicate ids, <strong>check the ToC on leg.gov</strong> to see if all the provisions appear to have unique urls (hover your cursor over the ToC entries and the url should appear in the bottom left of your screen).  TSO some time ago ran the “long url” code over the made versions of all documents on leg.gov, which should have fixed the duplicate ids caused by short urls by including a reference to its parent in the child provision’s longer url (e.g. /schedule/1/part/2/paragraph/1) where required to make it unique.

If you find a duplicate id (e.g. where two paras. 1 in a schedule have the same url), then a Jira publishing support story should be raised to ask TSO to fix it.

If you do not find an obvious duplicate id in two provisions or more, then go to Admin and <strong>remove the Hold status</strong> by clicking the appropriate button in the More menu in the update page.

If you are wrong about this, don’t worry.  All that will happen is that we will get a <strong>conflicting updates error</strong> when trying to start update and we can raise a Jira story at that point (note that we now have the option to <strong>Recast Identifiers</strong> on the Update Overview page, which we should try first before raising a Jira story when we get a conflicting updates error). 

If the document is on hold because initial edit is required, then you will need to arrange for <strong>online initial edit and/or review</strong> to be completed before allocating the update.

http://community.legislation.gov.uk/mediawiki/index.php?title=Research_Tasks/Initial_Edit

Before completing initial edit, please <strong>check if there is a started but incomplete secondary effects research</strong> task open on your document.

If there is an open research task, this should be reviewed and completed before you complete initial edit.  Otherwise, the new “coming into force” effects added to TOES by the initial edit task (which were not in TOES at the time the research task was started) will be overwritten and wiped out when the reviewed secondary effects spreadsheet is uploaded.

Also, before initial edit, if your document is <strong>Rules</strong>, please check the made version provision urls on leg.gov to see whether they correctly display as <strong>/rule/</strong>.  If not and they still display as <strong>/article/</strong> we can ask TSO to fix this for us in the made version by republishing it.  It’s easier if we do this before we create a revised version.

(NB If the document was <strong>offline initial edited</strong>, but the editorial system shows it as unreviewed, then please check leg.gov to see if the revised version has been published.  If it has, you can complete the offline initial edit review task.  If not, you should delete the offline initial edit tasks in Admin and arrange for online initial edit to be done instead.)

If you discover <strong>anything which needs fixing during initial edit</strong> (e.g. duplicate I-notes, unnecessary and badly worded I-notes for unnumbered provisions (e.g. wrappers) or for the reproduced text of EU Directives in Schs., etc), rather than raising a separate legislation correction task, you should <strong>allocate update and fix the issues in the first PiT in the update task</strong>.

Once all secondary effects research, TOES corrections and initial edit tasks are completed and any Hold statuses have been removed, then the document should be ready for update.

If the document is still unavailable for update, it may be because it is still disabled.  You can <strong>enable update</strong> by going into the More menu in the update page in Admin and clicking the appropriate button.

Now update should be available and we would request that at the very least at this point you allocate the first PiT/s to yourself and do the <strong>update to cover the original commencement</strong> of the legislation and <strong>check (and if necessary fix) the I-notes</strong>.  This will prevent the document’s provisions from showing as prospective on leg.gov, which users find a bit odd for older documents.

Before allocating update, it’s worth examining the TOES data to <strong>check that the TOES research has been dealt with consistently</strong>.  If different researchers have treated similar effects inconsistently then it’s best to do a <strong>TOES correction</strong> to tidy things up before we start editing.