[M] Sites - Define Data Model

[JLWade]

This ticket is to update the park name data model to include legal sites.

Acceptance Criteria

• data register data model documentation is updated with changes
  • added to DR wiki in github
• legal sites exist in the data register
  • sites from csv are imported into Data register (dev, test, prod)
  • indigenous characters are correctly imported
• Any other updates/decisions that come out of #223

Notes

• blocks #124
• blocked by #202
• blocked by #223 - unblocked as of Jan 2nd refinement
• relates to #320
• spreadsheets with info can be found here: https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/int/confluence/display/BCPRS/Park+Names
  • BC Parks Names.xlsx - will be most up to date
  • only looking at legal sites (ie. in spreadsheet isUnofficialSite = blank then it is a legal site)
  • Sites tab
    • site = site name
    • orcsSiteNumber =ID + Site number
    • siteNumber = part of ParkID?
    • isUnofficialSite blank = legal site (may need to double check this with Glenna's spreadsheet)

[ashley-dhillon]

Refinement comment: data flow diagram would be helpful; both data and user flows are needed; administrator on the front end who will be wardens of the data that will change; 2nd consumer will be API consumer/general public consumer receiving data directly from API; need flow charts for both of these. Collaboration between the dev's and UX/SD will be needed on each flow chart.

Dev's need to also get comfortable with the business context around sites, association, etc; updates to mapped relationships around protected areas will also need to be looked at;

[JLWade]

Refer to #223 for more info on decisions as of Jan 2nd (MVP sites will be searched via protected area search and all sites are associated with a protected area).

Unblocking this ticket after Jan 2 meeting.

[Dianadec]

Question: Bring in historic site names or only current ones? - Need to check with Jess. @JLWade Follow up with Glenna.

Notes:

• if dates are brought in then we'd have a complete data set.

[Dianadec]

Question above answered by Jess: "I think for park names we only brought over current and talked about historic names being brought over as a future iteration, so I’d like to follow that pattern. Bring in current site names first. We do not need to bring in repealed ones at this time." @meredithom @JLWade Moved back to In Progress since it is now unblocked.

[meredithom]

At this time sites do not have an effective date.

[manuji]

Tested on TEST: Pending

• Verified that the data model documentation has been updated but it wasn't in the wiki of github as mentioned in the AC. Instead you can find it here: https://github.com/bcgov/parks-data-register/blob/main/pdr-api/docs/nosqlWorkbenchDataModel.json
• None of the sites could be found on TEST Data register -> Failed

Moving this back to Todo. FYI @JLWade @meredithom @Dianadec

[meredithom]

I'm not sure what you mean by sites not being found in TEST.

This is a screenshot of the sites in the test database:

The file with the full list of sites that should have been imported can be found in Teams. At this time, only active sites were imported in dynamo.

[manuji]

Thanks @meredithom , I was checking from the Data register FE. It's my fault for assuming I would find the sites from the Main search. I will check this from DynamoDb.

[manuji]

Tested on Dev, TEST, PROD: Passed

• Verified that the Site data from the Excel sheet has been added to DynamoDB of all Dev, Test, and PROD environments.
• Passing this to PO review.

[JLWade]

@meredithom is there any documentation on the changes to the data model in github? (part of the first AC)

[JLWade]

jk found it! https://github.com/bcgov/parks-data-register/blob/main/pdr-api/docs/nosqlWorkbenchDataModel.json

Moving to done