Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Major Arctos release packaging #5331

Closed
dustymc opened this issue Dec 2, 2022 · 9 comments
Closed

Major Arctos release packaging #5331

dustymc opened this issue Dec 2, 2022 · 9 comments

Comments

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor

dustymc commented Dec 2, 2022

Status

  • there is now an API to create and edit identifications
  • my homegrown overlay now supports multiple active instances, and is used for a (new) taxa picker which can work in the complexity of the edit IDs form
  • ID attributes are implemented (in the model)
  • ID ranks have replaced accepted (in the model)
  • The guid-page identifications tab form is rebuilt to support the new model (and will continue to be refined)
  • there is now a relatively performant function to pull taxa-according-to-collection data
  • ^^ that thing is being used to pull taxa into identifications on guid pages
  • guid-page identifications now display attributes
  • results/tools/identifications should be fully functional
  • identification bulkloader is rebuilt
  • citation bulkloader is rebuilt
  • browse-and-edit is functional, although background tasks are still being refined
  • edit record (click the key from browse and edit) is functional
  • The bulk-checker function is functional (and producing status for edit)
  • Data Entry UI is functional
  • Load function is functional
  • Clone into bulkloader is functional (and ridiculously complex and in need of testing)

Discussed with AWG there are significant efficiencies in packaging a bunch of requests that will change the bulkloader up with the bulkloader change issue itself. This issue will serve as a way to link them, hopefully keeping me from getting lost and ultimately keeping me from rewriting code and then needing to immediately rewrite it again. No information should exist solely in this Issue, it is just a link. Anything that can be resolved and will change the structure of the bulkloader should be linked here. Anything that will change the structure of the bulkloader and cannot be resolved in a reasonable time will (barring significant developments, dedicated funding, fundamental changes in how we see the world, etc.) be delayed for ~5 years.

I'm going active to keep this on my radar, but some things (eg specific shape of the future bulkloader) still need discussed. At this time I don't believe there is any hard/timebomb (eg 'something will die unless...') timeline for proceeding; this can take as long as is needed, but lots of users are waiting on these things so there is a sense of urgency.

Bundled Issues:

REMOVED

@dustymc dustymc added this to the Active Development milestone Dec 2, 2022
@ewommack

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@dustymc

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@ewommack

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@Jegelewicz

This comment was marked as off-topic.

@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

Discussed at Arctos Lunch today. Based upon notes in the AWG meeting last week, we feel it is time for @dustymc to write up his plan for implementation for review and communication prior to any development.

@dustymc
Copy link
Contributor Author

dustymc commented May 8, 2023

plan for implementation

Here's a draft, I'll copy it over to arctos-dev when we get a little closer to the June 1 whatever-that-was-supposed-to-be that was specified at the last Issues Meeting.

re: https://github.com/ArctosDB/internal/issues/258 - I'm assuming all of our meetings somehow add up to sufficient agreement to consider eventually posting this in arctos-dev, I'm still not at all clear what happens after that. Advise on any aspect of that, for this and/or in general, would be greatly appreciated.


@Jegelewicz
Copy link
Member

@campmlc
Copy link

campmlc commented May 9, 2023

This is my understanding of our discussions, and I support moving forward.

@ebraker
Copy link
Contributor

ebraker commented May 9, 2023

Agreed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants