Open strogonoff opened 1 year ago
As of now, the discrepancies are:
- IANA:
contributor -> 0 -> organization -> abbreviation str type expected (type=type_error.str) # fixed
- IEEE:
contributor -> 0 -> organization -> abbreviation str type expected (type=type_error.str) # fixed keyword str type expected (type=type_error.str) # fixed keyword -> 0 str type expected (type=type_error.str) # fixed copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 0 -> name -> 0 str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 0 -> name str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 0 -> abbreviation str type expected (type=type_error.str) # fixed copyright -> from field required (type=value_error.missing) copyright -> owner value is not a valid list (type=type_error.list)
- ID:
contributor -> 0 -> person -> name -> given -> forename -> 0 Forename.__init__() missing 1 required positional argument: 'content' (type=type_error) contributor -> 0 -> person -> name -> given -> forename -> content str type expected (type=type_error.str)
- MISC:
contributor -> 0 -> person -> name -> given -> forename -> 0 Forename.__init__() missing 1 required positional argument: 'content' (type=type_error) contributor -> 0 -> person -> name -> given -> forename -> content str type expected (type=type_error.str)
- NIST:
contributor -> 8 -> organization -> abbreviation str type expected (type=type_error.str)
- RFCS:
contributor -> 0 -> person -> name -> given -> forename -> 0 Forename.__init__() missing 1 required positional argument: 'content' (type=type_error) contributor -> 0 -> person -> name -> given -> forename -> content str type expected (type=type_error.str)
organization -> abbreviation
cases should be covered by normalization in #282person -> name -> given -> ...
cases should be covered by normalization in #282keyword -> ...
cases should be covered by normalization in #278copyright -> 0 -> owner -> ...
cases still need attention (validation errors here: https://bib.ietf.org/indexed-sources/relaton-data-ieee/ANSI_IEEE_991-1986/)adding some IEEE examples of this issue in practice. (presumably this is #283, although I don't see "Could not export" mentioned above.) Got the following errors upon click of "bibxml" on:
Could not export this item, the error was: Source data for item IEEE 1003.1-2017 (IEEE) didn’t validate (err: 7 validation errors for BibliographicItem copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 0 -> name -> 0 str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 0 -> name str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 0 -> abbreviation str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 1 -> name -> 0 str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 1 -> name str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> from value is not a valid integer (type=type_error.integer) copyright -> owner field required (type=value_error.missing))
the last one:
Could not export this item, the error was: Source data for item IEEE 802.1Q-2014 (IEEE) didn’t validate (err: 5 validation errors for BibliographicItem copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 0 -> name -> 0 str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 0 -> name str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> 0 -> owner -> 0 -> abbreviation str type expected (type=type_error.str) copyright -> from value is not a valid integer (type=type_error.integer) copyright -> owner field required (type=value_error.missing))
The issues reported by @strogonoff have been moved here:
@alicerusso we will investigate the IEEE examples in:
Hi, @ronaldtse, is there an update for this issue? I see that the dependencies https://github.com/relaton/relaton/issues/108 and https://github.com/relaton/relaton-ieee/issues/32 are closed, and the reported discrepancies (https://github.com/ietf-tools/bibxml-service/issues/277, https://github.com/ietf-tools/bibxml-service/issues/250, https://github.com/ietf-tools/bibxml-service/issues/281.) are also closed. Thanks!
@ronaldtse is there anything left to do here?
Describe the issue
Stefano outlined discrepancies between data sources and
relaton-py
expectations here.The discrepancies arise because (1) previously invalid YAML was updated to match Relaton RNC/LutaML data specification (where relaton-py has come to rely on YAML to be invalid), or (2) data specification updated, YAML updated accordingly, but relaton-py was not updated.
These discrepancies lead to issues like: #277, #250, #281.
Fronts on which they could be attacked:
Code of Conduct