Differences between UAT and PRD

[ess-acppo-djd]

There are some differences between the UAT implementation of the TaxaaS website (uat-ag-bie.oztaxa.com) and the PRD implementation (ag-bie.oztaxa.com):

Formatting of search results individual entries consist (generally) of five lines of data as follows, with the lines noted being optional

• taxon rank followed by full taxon name (presented as a hyperlink to it's entry in the ag-BIE SOLR index)

• common names if any apply (optional)

• kingdom in which taxon is placed

• formatted name of taxon

• a link to 'view images of this species...' (optional - uncertain what triggers this inclusion)

• [x] in PRD, line 4 commences with bold styling, but UAT commences with italic styling.

• [x] In PRD, bold styling is applied to entire lines, with no discernible pattern to it occurring.

Sequence of search results

• [x] search results are not presented in the same sequence.

Data included in results

• [x] "Biota ID" identifier is not always listed on the name tab
  • Drosophila, Biota ID 55003 is missing

[mbohun]

1. one has to be CAREFUL to avoid back-porting the UAT BUG #10 into PRD
2. for the comparison I can use the UAT env to build data-taxxas-YYYY-MM-DD_01.tar.xz as we do/use in installing/deploying latest PRD
   • this could help us to identify the details of differences (possible problems) between the old UAT, and current (latest, stable) PRD; i.e. narrow down if the differences are caused by diff properties/config settings between the environments

[ess-acppo-djd]

For the formatting, I would consider the UAT implementation to be correct. This is a lower priority than the 'identifier' issue.

[mbohun]

@charvolant implemented/tested fix:

BUG: https://ag-bie.oztaxa.com/species/55003#names

FIX: https://dev1-ag-bie.oztaxa.com/species/55003#names

[ess-acppo-djd]

When will this be promoted to SIT? And when might it be implemented in PRD?

Note: Issue also raised in JIRA as ESP-718

[moziauddin]

Data quality issues are all resolved in release 0.6