search

NHMDenmark / Mass-Digitizer

Common repo for the DaSSCo team
Apache License 2.0
1 stars 0 forks source link

Old records associated with containers through the notes field #473

Closed jlegind closed 4 months ago

jlegind commented 5 months ago

What is the issue ?

I noticed that an export contained records referencing other records through the notes field. The notes field reads: MSO with NHMD00940510

Details

The reference in the first record catalog number 00940510 could not be found in the dataset itself. This means it probably references a record in another dataset export. The other record has this reference 00940582 which also doesn't exist in the export file. There is a single record having the MOS signature: MOS with NHMD00936835

Why is it needed/relevant ?

This issue stems from a time when the Digi app did not have a solid feature for dealing with Multi Specimen Objects or Multi Object Specimens. We want the container object to be referenced consistently which is why we can't have these band aid measures lingering in Specify. There are a total of three records in Specify that conform to this pattern: LIKE 'mso%' abd they have the following catalog numbers: 000930922, 000931477, 000935037 And another one with the MOS with NHMD00936835 pattern: 000937321

Estimate level of effort required.

easy

What is the expected acceptable result.

Consistent container associations: Records attached to one container must share the same container ID.

How to approach it?

I suppose that applying the correct ID to both records through the Specify interface should solve it: ID: MSO[19 digit random number] like so MSO8406649029555393284 I suggest minting a new identifier for each of the four record pairs.

Is there a potential risk to this.

There might exist other records suffering the same issue, but having the container association written up differently.

FedorSteeman commented 5 months ago

Is this to be fixed manually in Specify then and who will do this? @jlegind @RebekkaML @AstridBVW

AstridBVW commented 5 months ago

Is this to be fixed manually in Specify then and who will do this? @jlegind @RebekkaML @AstridBVW

@FedorSteeman I am already working on this :)

AstridBVW commented 4 months ago

Most of the catalog numbers referenced in the description above are also referenced in previous tickets that are already resolved.

NHMD00940510 and NHMD00940582 were resolved in #450.

NHMD00936835 and NHMD00937321 were resolved in #447.

NHMD00935037 was resolved in #446.

The only catalog numbers with unresolved container issues were NHMD00930922 and NHMD00931477.

The note for NHMD00930922 said it should be MSO with NHMD00930456. NHMD00930922 was already linked to container MSO8159923822801928869. NHMD00930456 is now also linked to that container.

The note for NHMD00931477 said it should be MSO with NHMD00931073. NHMD00931477 was already linked to container MSO5279378888856922791. NHMD00931073 is now also linked to that container.