An addition if it is not too late for the mapping: Gitlab user ngrudzinska
should be mapped to Github user psncng
Spreadsheet updated.
If that can help, I've tested the POST merge on stage with Github links in accessible at and also as external IDs. It seems to work well.
api/tools-services/merge?with=UhXkKH&with=F8fsFP -> https://sshoc-marketplace-stage.acdh-dev.oeaw.ac.at/tool-or-service/kWPtc5
and
api/tools-services/merge?with=NhuMKv&with=auDlxK -> https://sshoc-marketplace-stage.acdh-dev.oeaw.ac.at/tool-or-service/8eFcjm
Together with Martin, we've finalised the manual curation of 69 items flagged with an URL issue last time we run the notebook.
As we wanted to run it again, to reflect the changes manually introduced in the flags and eventually identified new items with URL problems, we ran into an error with the URLCheck() and the checkURLValues() functions that we are not able to solve on our own.
Here is the screenshot of the error
@cesare.concordia do you think that is something you could look into to help us, please?
This is an umbrella issue to discuss URLs curation, especially the methods developed in the python library to flag broken URLs and the examples provided in the related notebook.
notify @klaus.illmayer @cesare.concordia @martin.kirnbauer @alex
Few experiments have already been conducted to curate MP actors, esp. methods to identify duplicates & merge them (see for ex.#13) and identify multi-values to disambiguate (see #4) are set up.
These methods are currently summarised in an actor notebook. As we - @martin.kirnbauer and me - are trying to re-open the actors curation activities, we've noticed several points that could be checked/improved in the notebook. @cesare.concordia could you have a look at the following, please, and let us know what you think?
Once these points are implemented and allow manual correction, a more regular workflow will be set up, following what was foreseen in #10.
notify also @klaus.illmayer @matej.durco
mock-up for this step screen? look into that
while creating or enriching an exiting item via the edit form, there is a bug with some of the fields. It seems restricted to the concept-based fields.
I've managed to reproduce at least one case encountered today during the sprint, but it might be that there are other cases I did not identify.
If a concept is chosen for a concept-based field (ex: "public" for intended audience), and some of the property lines above intended audience in the form are then deleted, the concept "public" disappears/vanishes from the field. Nevertheless it is still present and it doesn't prevent users to submit/save the item. Even when trying to select "public again, the concept continues to vanish if clicking somewhere else on the page.
looks very similar to #83
notify also @klaus.illmayer @edward.gray
I spot a wrong External ID
of an entry. I go into the edit form and replace the wrong Identifier
with the correct one. When publishing it, it will not replace the wrong identifier but instead create a new External ID
.
When I replace the wrong Identifier
of the External ID
in the edit form and Publish
it, I expect that only the Identifier
of this External ID
is changed.
Instead of changing the Identifier
of the External ID
it will create a new External ID
with the changed Identifier
and the wrong External ID
stays untouched.
External ID
an entry with ID Service
GitHub
and with the Identifier
https://github.com/test
and Publish
External ID
created in 2 and change only the Identifier
to test
, finally Publish
External IDs
, one with Identifier
https://github.com/test
and one with Identifier
test
Notify @lbarbot
In the review mode, it is currently not possible for a moderator to see the changes introduced by contributors on the steps of a workflow.
Is it complicated to implement review mode for steps? It would probably mean to have a visual clue of which step is concerned by a change on the following screen:
but for the rest, it seems the same approval/rejection comparison than other item types. Correct?
once a media or a thumbnail have been added, it is not possible to edit them via the edit form. If a user wants to add a caption, or change an url for ex., they have to delete the media and upload a new one adding/changing info.
Edition via the same media box than during the upload should be possible.
notify also @klaus.illmayer @edward.gray
Based on the first six months of use, recommended fields have been/will be updated soon in the documentation: gdoc version to prepare the update of the static page https://marketplace.sshopencloud.eu/contribute/metadata-guidelines#metadata-status
Config of the forms should be updated accordingly.
notify also @klaus.illmayer @edward.gray
when creating a workflow and its steps and saving/submitted them, it creates as many workflow entries in the list of draft items, contributed items or moderation queue, as the number of versions created during the workflow creation process.
In other words, if a contributor creates a workflow and two steps, save as draft, they will see 4 times the workflow entry in the "my draft items" screen. The same happens when the workflow is submitted, and re-accessed by the contributor from the "my contributed item" screen or seen by the moderator from "items to moderate" screen.
Example below form the "my contributed items" screen for a workflow with two steps (only submitted once):
also notify @klaus.illmayer @matej.durco
based on today's workshop, this issue should be prioritised.
when creating a workflow and its steps and saving or submitting it, the preview mode does not allow users to see the steps, but only the workflow.
Experienced by some users today during the sprint and reproduced on stage. Example: https://sshoc-marketplace-stage.acdh-dev.oeaw.ac.at/workflow/lEuWKY/version/48679
notify also @klaus.illmayer @edward.gray
while creating or enriching an exiting item via the edit form, there is a bug with some of the fields. It seems restricted to the concept-based fields.
I've managed to reproduce at least one case encountered today during the sprint, but it might be that there are other cases I did not identify.
If a concept is chosen for a concept-based field (ex: "public" for intended audience), and some of the property lines above intended audience in the form are then deleted, the concept "public" disappears/vanishes from the field. Nevertheless it is still present and it doesn't prevent users to submit/save the item. Even when trying to select "public again, the concept continues to vanish if clicking somewhere else on the page.
looks very similar to #83
notify also @klaus.illmayer @edward.gray
while creating an item from scratch, and adding specific URLs in the accessibleAt field, it creates a bug and prevent the item to be "save as draft" or "submitted".
error message received on the edit form: "Last submission failed: Source item id is required because source was matched with 'CLARIN Resource Families' by Accessible at Url." >>> with the following URL used in accessibleAt:
error message received on the edit form: "Last submission failed: Source item id is required because source was matched with 'The Programming Historian' by Accessible at Url." For indeed a PH url in accessibleAt:
this bug has been encountered today during the workshop on the production instance by several users. I've reproduced on stage for these last examples.
bug connected to: #169
notify also @klaus.illmayer @stefan.probst @matej.durco
We need bulk actions when a lot of items are involved like approving an ingest. There are - as I see it - three ways how to handle this (and in principle, all of this three ways could operate in parallel):
ingested
from source x
(disadvantage: take it or leave it - granularity could be a problem)Open for discussion to find a solution: @matej.durco @lbarbot @mkozak @edward.gray @frank.fischer01 @stefan.probst @cesare.concordia
We need bulk actions when a lot of items are involved like approving an ingest. There are - as I see it - three ways how to handle this (and in principle, all of this three ways could operate in parallel):
ingested
from source x
(disadvantage: take it or leave it - granularity could be a problem)Open for discussion to find a solution: @matej.durco @lbarbot @mkozak @edward.gray @frank.fischer01 @stefan.probst @cesare.concordia
good point!
It could indeed be solved by adding an help text, as we did for the other fields.
Could these texts be ok? There are maybe a bit too long... Let me know if I should try something shorter. I've also added the actor IDs.
Two additional demands connected to the edit forms. Do you want them in an another issue, @stefan.probst ?