Add Language Tag/Locale to Reconsent Check

[cassidysymons]

When the reconsent process was originally set up, it was assumed that whenever an update to consent agreements was necessary, it would be done for all languages at once. However, this was not the case in reality, as the Japanese documents were updated after the fact.

Based on this reality, the code that checks whether a user needs to reconsent needed to be made aware of the user's locale. This PR contains the code that does that, as well as updated unit tests to observe that it works as intended. No corresponding updates to microsetta-interface are necessary.

[cassidysymons]

@wasade Given the fact that we've limited the ja_JP locale to Japanese residents, and the English/Spanish consents are equivalent in content, do you still have concerns about this from a conceptual standpoint?

[wasade]

Equivalent right now but not assured in the future. The concern w/ "Is it possible for the same user to sign multiple versions of the same consent by changing their locale, and if so, does that have consequences?" does I think still hold

[cassidysymons]

It would be possible for someone to sign both the English and Spanish documents (either/both Spanish locales), yes. As far as consequences, @sejsong, are you aware of any IRB issues if a user signs multiple translations of the same consent document?

[wasade]

It would be good for the code to verify document versions explicitly, rather than implicitly

[sejsong]

No issues since the English and Spanish versions have exactly the same content.

[wasade]

I'm not concerned about today, I'm concerned about the future

[cassidysymons]

Adding explicit versioning to the consent documents wouldn't be a huge task. Considering all of the consequences of different locales being on different versions would be a much bigger conversation. Would you agree that refactoring the current code to explicit versioning but punting on dealing with all of the consequences is acceptable for now?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 11:29 Daniel McDonald @.***> wrote:

I'm not concerned about today, I'm concerned about the future

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/biocore/microsetta-private-api/pull/544*issuecomment-1830537709__;Iw!!Mih3wA!A1HzWtK_YRtlYR6q7xmZiyoi5jW44ow8CpDjQCdUDkVSFNcm2E_q1RC9u7nc12eevsOXfdjNtcFH1kNTTz7Eavc2xQmDeUGaaho$, or unsubscribe https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AT3D4ZLKKVRNK3DY5IGVN5DYGY3SDAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7NAMA42VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMZQGUZTONZQHE__;!!Mih3wA!A1HzWtK_YRtlYR6q7xmZiyoi5jW44ow8CpDjQCdUDkVSFNcm2E_q1RC9u7nc12eevsOXfdjNtcFH1kNTTz7Eavc2xQmDKd2ypuY$ . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>

[wasade]

Sounds good thanks!

[cassidysymons]

Closing this PR as it's been replaced by https://github.com/biocore/microsetta-private-api/pull/548