Add isolde rules - #572
Conversation
| - "e5de962b-5e2c-408f-be69-2823fda1f732" | ||
| isolde: | ||
| data_dir: cds_migrator_kit/rdm/data/isolde | ||
| plots: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you are missing the inclusion(submission) request creation setting
|
|
||
| Returns the model instance if found, otherwise None. | ||
| """ | ||
| models = _load_models(self.dojson_model.entry_point_models) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you don't have to load it again, it is loaded somewhere in the app already, if you pass the loaded models in the exception then we could just select by the key
| exit 1 | ||
| fi | ||
|
|
||
| echo "=== Fixing files_location URI for this machine ===" |
5590ede to
38ce7b1
Compare
38ce7b1 to
3a16f03
Compare
3a16f03 to
9e07d5b
Compare
|
|
||
| __query__ = '693__.a:"CERN ISOLDE" AND (980__:ARTICLE OR 980__:PREPRINT OR 980__:conferencepaper OR 980__:NOTE OR 980__:REPORT) -980__:DELETED -980__.c:MIGRATED -980__:DUMMY' | ||
|
|
||
| __ignore_keys__ = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could we import and concatenate with the keys specified in _config.py?
| # YYYY convention but are still migrated as apprn. Post-migration, | ||
| # only super-admins can edit those records. New submissions on the | ||
| # production app use the strict is_approval_report_number validator. | ||
| "validator": always_valid, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that would require maybe change according to the solution we discussed IRL
29832b3 to
8361bb9
Compare
| cli_logger.info( | ||
| f"[apprn] Found approval report number {identifier!r} — storing as apprn" | ||
| ) | ||
| scheme = "apprn" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure about adding them as apprn in the rule, if we' do this we need to change ep-approval workflow, see: restricted entry, public entry. We need to separate the report numbers somehow, for example faser records both have cern-ep-draft- and cern-ep- rep numbers, will this going to keep cern-ep-draft- as cdsrn?
I think we should raise if there's a ep report number and no ep information to check if there is any other record exists in the system. If we say we'll fix it when we have the error (when we found the internal record or etc) it might be more manual work to fix, wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DIscussed IRL: we should add a step to check for all the identified EP numbers and collect the duplicates
8361bb9 to
36860d6
Compare
…rds as already approved
36860d6 to
4dbc74b
Compare
3 participants
closes #478