BusinessRuleException when deleting and re-adding a collector with the same agent

[grantfitzsimmons]

BusinessRuleException at /api/specify/collectingevent/6/

('Collector must have unique agent in collectingevent', {'table': 'Collector', 'localizationKey': 'childFieldNotUnique', 'fieldName': 'agent', 'fieldData': ('agent', {'id': 626, 'abbreviation': None, 'agenttype': 1, 'date1': None, 'date1precision': None, 'date2': None, 'date2precision': None, 'dateofbirth': None, 'dateofbirthprecision': 1, 'dateofdeath': None, 'dateofdeathprecision': 1, 'datetype': None, 'email': None, 'firstname': 'Donald', 'guid': 'e0b196c7-f3af-4e3e-a5ef-5e8f8bf664ae', 'initials': None, 'integer1': None, 'integer2': None, 'interests': None, 'jobtitle': None, 'lastname': 'Huggins', 'middleinitial': 'E', 'remarks': None, 'suffix': None, 'text1': None, 'text2': None, 'text3': None, 'text4': None, 'text5': None, 'title': 'mr', 'url': None, 'verbatimdate1': None, 'verbatimdate2': None, 'version': 1, 'collcontentcontact': None, 'colltechcontact': None, 'createdbyagent': 1986, 'division': 2, 'instcontentcontact': None, 'insttechcontact': None, 'modifiedbyagent': 1987, 'organization': None, 'specifyuser': None}), 'parentField': 'collectingevent', 'parentData': 'collectingevent: id=6', 'conflicting': [2500]})

Specify 7 Crash Report - 2023-02-13T14 53 10.570Z.txt

---

This is a spin-off of #2884 focused on the underlying issue

I was editing the collectors in a record.

They were in the wrong order, so I deleted, them, and put them back, when I hit save, I got this error. Maybe I should have saved after I deleted???

Reported by: Heather Cole at AAFC

[maxpatiiuk]

Possibly related to #1702

[melton-jason]

This is caused by the same bug which caused #1702.

This occurs for every -to-many relationship and is related to the way the frontend checks uniqueness rules. Essentially, when there is a -to-many relationship, the frontend would only check records within that -to-many relationship. Thus the database contains the values, but the frontend simply thinks it is a new AccessionAgent, and is only checking other AccessionAgents in that Acession.

So this specific case was not accounted for.

From #1702 (comment)

[emenslin]

Duplicate of #1702