If you compare http://musicbrainz.org/reports/index.html and http://test.musicbrainz.org/report you can see we're missing a lot of the current ones.
I'm fairly certain we've decided reports can wait. So moving to Post NGS and unassigning.
All the reports that are already on the test server give an error (We are sorry, but data for this report is not available right now.). Is that meant to wait as well (or is that a totally different issue)?
I've just ran all the reports on test, so they work now. Thanks for poking me to do that!
When doing the duplicate artists report, we should probably exclude artists linked as performance names as requested in http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/601
It would probably also be a good idea to filter out results where all the artists have comments (which would not only make the report more useful, it would make it easier to find artists which need comments but don't have them).
The reports from http://classic.musicbrainz.org/reports/index.html that we still don't have:
1. Possibly duplicate artists
2. Release Groups that might need to be merged
3. Releases with tracks which have no times set
4. Releases with duplicated or missing track numbers
5. Releases with superfluous data tracks
6. Releases with identical barcodes which might need part of set relationships (now: which might need merging)
7. Releases with "broken" disc IDs
8. Incorrect disc IDs submitted by Windows clients
9. Disc IDs assigned to multiple releases
10. Releases with disc IDs which may have pre-gap tracks
11. Tracks with broken featuring artist tags
12. Tracks whose names include their sequence numbers
13. Tracks with the word 'unknown' in them
14. Tracks which are probably encoded using the wrong character set
15. Tracks which contain questionable characters
16. Tracks with too many capital letters
17. Tracks with no capital letters
18. PUID collisions
19. PUIDs that appear more than once on a release
20. Multiple PUIDs
Setting as decision required because we should decide which ones we actually want to reimplement.
I would say yes to:
1 (would be more useful if updated to take into account things which are already disambiguated), 2, 4, 5 (would be better if updated to only check for certain formats), 12
I would say no to:
8 (they don't seem to be a problem), 9 (now unavoidable because of the way NGS works), 14 (it's rare for anything that needs fixing to show up here, it's all false positives)
I'm not sure about:
3 (it reports nearly 12% of the database), 6 (not many releases left), 7 (is this possible now?), 10 (it's unclear what the report is actually for), 11 (possibly, or is MBS-3234 enough?), 13 (what exactly is it for?), 16 & 17 (are they useful?), 18-20 (given the status of PUIDs...)
Well, I would set it to design required if I knew how...
Done (after going through just about every possible workflow...)
Go with nikki's suggestions. If you find something is amiss when working on these, ping nikki.
I would keep report n. 6: otherwise, those few releases are not likely going to get fixed; on top of that, we still have editors adding multi-disc releases separately.
Luca: The reason I'm not sure about 6 is because it's just a more specific version of an existing report - http://musicbrainz.org/report/SeparateDiscs
I've split the 'decision required' reports out, and put all the ones nikki wanted done into review. The wontfix ones are not in JIRA yet, other than in nikki's comment.
Specific reports are in my iteration, so I'm moving this out of it