GeoSpatial attributes should not be Visible when Viewing other Resource Types (DDS-1071)

[annikaLiving]

The following fields are visible in View mode for Tabular, Webservices/API and Application Resources, yet only belong to Resources for BCGW Geospatial datasets.

These fields should not be visible if not populated as many Geospatial datasets also do not include these and never will as they are only for a subset of datasets. These will lead to consumer confusion as these will never be populated for any of these resource types.

• Object Short Name
• Object Table Comments
• Details

Logic:

1. Exists if where bcdc_type = 'geographic'

• These fields only apply if they are resource_storage_location = 'bc geographic warehouse' (although this is just metadata, so technically a user could put something else) but yes the data only exists if actually in the BCGW.
• These are only populated if the object_name field is populated with a name in prod bcgw and the pyETS script can find (which runs nightly via jenkins).

2 Does not exist if where where bcdc_type in ('tabular/document', 'webservice','application')

• These fields will never apply to the above bcdc_types
• As the field object_name is not visible to these bcdc_types, these fields could never be populated via the pyETS script.

[SteveChapmanBCDX]

We should probably do an audit to make sure that each resource type is displaying relevant fields (and no other fields).

[annikaLiving]

@SteveChapmanBCDX good point as I see Application, Webservices and Tabular are all showing the same fields and this is not the case in Cat Classic. Where as Application and WebServices should only have a few fields. Confirmed in Cat Classic that they have the following but others could be useful:

• File
• Resource Name
• Resource Storage Format

Did the UI mock ups I did ~6 months ago get written up as these outlined what fields should be for each resource type?

[SteveChapmanBCDX]

@annikaLiving - We'll have to confirm with @yuisotozaki. I'm pretty sure that he did separate mockups for each of the resource types and then modified the views based on the review meetings that we did last fall (Yui, you, me, Brandon, DAs).

[yuisotozaki]

Yes the separate fields per resource type was discussed amongst the team before. No, we didn't create a design for each resource type.

[annikaLiving]

@TerryLanktree this is one of the tix we are going to discuss this afternoon.

[annikaLiving]

These fields are wrong on bcdc_types where not geographic and bcgw and thus should be removed.

[ghost]

https://dpdd.atlassian.net/browse/DDS-1071