TraitBank data don't move with hierarchy entries when taxon concepts are split

[KatjaSchulz]

After performing a series of taxon concept splits and hierarchy entry moves, I checked the data tabs of both concepts to make sure TraitBank data were associated with the correct concept. I found that TraitBank data always stay with the old concept, even if the hierarchy entry to which they are attached moves to a new concept. I waited 24 hours to check, then requested a manual reindex, then waited another 24 hours, but the problem persists. I am pretty sure this is a known issue, and I thought it was addressed a while ago, but I cannot find the ticket.

Here are the affected concepts:

Case #1: Cucurbita concept split Old concept: http://eol.org/pages/38266 Target concept: http://eol.org/pages/46244534 The target concept now has the Paleobiology Database hierarchy entry: http://eol.org/pages/46244534/names This is the hierarchy entry to which this data record is attached: http://eol.org/pages/38266/data#data_point_40878220 However that data record still displays on the data tab and in the json-ld of the old concept: http://eol.org/pages/38266/data

Case #2: Forsythia concept split Old concept: http://eol.org/pages/61838 Target concept: http://eol.org/pages/46244535 The target concept now has the Paleobiology Database hierarchy entry: http://eol.org/pages/46244535/names This is the hierarchy entry to which this data record is attached: http://eol.org/pages/61838/data#data_point_41004056 However that data record still displays on the data tab and in the json-ld of the old concept: http://eol.org/pages/61838/data

Case #3: Whitneya hierarchy entry move Old concept: http://eol.org/pages/38395 (Arnica) Target concept: http://eol.org/pages/4818303 (Strepsidura) The Strepsidura concept now has the IRMNG Whitneya hierarchy entry: http://eol.org/pages/4818303/names This is the hierarchy entry to which this data record is attached: http://eol.org/pages/38395/data#data_point_9028406 However that data record still displays on the data tab and in the json-ld of the Arnica concept: http://eol.org/pages/38395/data

Fixing this problem as soon as possible is important since it affects our ability to fulfill the "Curation of Specific Data Issues" portion of the Google contract.

[jhammock]

forgive me, I neglected to update when this was demoed; the status now should be ready to deploy, is that right?

[AmrMMorad]

Yes, this is correct. I modified the label for this now Thanks a lot