Fix application ID parsing, etc.

[billyeh]

• Take out some old merge markers that messed up the code
• More complete null and empty string-checking for locations
• Check for id in 'application_number' or 'application_reference', in old and new schemas, respectively.

[billyeh]

By the way, integration tests have gone a little crazy since the last changes with this celery thing, and I'm looking into it now because I also wanted to add more for all 13 years of application schemas just to be safe. I'll keep the repo updated with new pull requests/issues when I find them.

[gtfierro]

I removed the external celery stuff, so now it all runs in a single thread. I'll hack on it today and let you know if anything needs to be changed.

[billyeh]

It also seems like we'll need to change application ID parsing for grants and/or applications, since they have the same information, just in slightly different formats, right now. I can change the applications' stuff because it seems like having [year]/id is redundant, and grants just have the id.

[gtfierro]

Can you make the necessary changes in the grant/application parsers so that we get the IDs and numbers as they appear in usptofixed.application and application.application? We need to change usptofixed.application.id, application.application.number and application.application.id

[billyeh]

Yup - I'll add to this pull request later this week.

[gtfierro]

I promise I'll look into merging this PR this week, Bill

[billyeh]

Sure, whenever you have time. Don't forget that in this pull request, the application id is still in the form "year/8-digit serial number", and the number is in the form "8-digit serial number".

[gtfierro]

Isn't that what we decided on using?

[gtfierro]

As in, that's what it's like in the current usptofixed/apptest database?

[billyeh]

Yup, exactly. Sorry, just wanted to clarify.

[billyeh]

I don't even know if this helps, but I've rebased so that if there's merge conflicts you don't have to fix them for the pull request. There was also a typo on a print and we might want to add a dependency for joblib.

[gtfierro]

Thanks for the rebase, Bill. I have a few changes in my own branch that I want to push in order to finish the contract. I'll be doing that sometime soon, and then I'll ping you so you can do a final rebase and then we'll merge in the PR. Sound good?

[billyeh]

Of course. Thanks for the reply! When things are stable I'll be able to add tests too :)

[billyeh]

Thanks for merging. Will close! :+1: