search

pds-data-dictionaries / PDS4-LDD-Issue-Repo

Issue repository for tracking all PDS4 Discipline Dictionary-related issues, new feature requests, and releases.
Apache License 2.0
2 stars 1 forks source link

[ldd-ctli] Namespace Version has gone backwards? #284

Open acraugh opened 5 months ago

acraugh commented 5 months ago

Issue Type Bug - either in the IngestLDD or in the (lack of) documentation explaining the anomaly.

Describe the issue identified (if applicable) I noted in updating my local schema tree that the version number of the CTLI dictionary was 2.1.0.0 in a version released with IM 1K00, but it reverted to version 2.0.0.0 in the version released with IM 1L00.

In checking the recent release branches, I see that only version 2.0.0.0 was built for the last (1.21) release, but the 2.1.0.0 version was apparently built and released prior to that, as both 2.0.0.0 and 2.1.0.0 versions are posted in the PDS dictionary archive for the 1.20 IM. The new release (1.22) has built only a version 2.1.0.0, but I cannot determine if it is the same 2.1.0.0 version as posted for the 1.20 build.

Describe the solution you'd like If the version number is incorrect, it should be corrected. If, however, a conscious decision was made to revert to the previous version on the last build, this decision should be well documented in the source file and, ideally, a change log. If the version was inadvertently reverted, then the possibility of other changes having been lost as well should be investigated. The comments in the Ingest LDD source file are minimal and shed no light on when the change was originally made, when or why it was reverted, and when it was made again.

Describe alternatives you've considered Considered investigating further, but I've got my own build inconsistencies to worry about...

LDD Dictionary Version The version of the dictionary is what is in question.

PDS4 IM Version N/A

Need-by Date N/A

Additional context N/A

lylehuber commented 5 months ago

Ingest file says it's 2.1.0.0. @jordanpadams How do we correct this?

jordanpadams commented 5 months ago

@lylehuber @acraugh it looks like out our nominal build cycle for IM 1L00, CTLI was at 2.0.0.0, and we put that online as expected.

from your repo, it looks like you then manually triggered a release in your repo for 2.1.0.0, but only requested that 1K00 be posted online. if you would like 1L00 to be posted (or any other versions), please create another ticket and the operations team will get that posted.

acraugh commented 5 months ago

Ah - interesting. I will keep that in mind as I deal with asynch releases of several dictionaries I rejoice in stewarding. Glad it seems to be a simple fix and not overwriting changes!

-Anne.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 12:55 PM Jordan Padams @.***> wrote:

@lylehuber https://github.com/lylehuber @acraugh https://github.com/acraugh it looks like out our nominal build cycle for IM 1L00, CTLI was at 2.0.0.0, and we put that online as expected.

from your repo, it looks like you then manually triggered a release in your repo for 2.1.0.0, but only requested that 1K00 be posted online https://github.com/NASA-PDS/operations/issues/487. if you would like 1L00 to be posted (or any other versions), please create another ticket and the operations team will get that posted.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pds-data-dictionaries/PDS4-LDD-Issue-Repo/issues/284#issuecomment-2155199865, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADBV2QAS446ND4G2FZ3EOQTZGHQYJAVCNFSM6AAAAABI6N5376VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNJVGE4TSOBWGU . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.*** com>