Display embargo dates in Restrictions Note

[kevinreiss]

User story

When an object has an embargo date it needs to be displayed in the restrictions note display

Acceptance criteria

• [ ] I see the value of the embargo_date_display field in the restrictions_note_display field.
• [ ] I can successfully use this feature with Voice Over in Safari.
• [ ] I have checked this feature using one of the following browser extensions and confirmed that it does not add any level A or level AA issues:
  • axe dev tools
  • Lighthouse
  • Wave

Concrete example

https://catalog-staging.princeton.edu/catalog/99129112208406421 is an example record. "embargo_date_display" is populated however "restriction_note_display" is missing this data point. Currently the value is stored as:

This dissertation is under embargo until A digital copy is available for viewing in the Mudd Manuscript Library reading room during the embargo period. If you are interested in this service, please fill out the Ask Us form using the following link.

This should read

This dissertation is under embargo until 05/31/2024. A digital copy is available for viewing in the Mudd Manuscript Library reading room during the embargo period. If you are interested in this service, please fill out the Ask Us form using the following link.

Implementation notes, if any

The contents of embargo_date_display need to be injected into restriction_note_display. See https://catalog-staging.princeton.edu/catalog/99129112208406421/raw for example data.

[kevinreiss]

@rladdusaw @jrgriffiniii I'm a bit confused on this one. Could we add an example of a record where this "works" in the ticket created last week https://github.com/pulibrary/orangetheses/issues/77. We had worked out the parsing of the embargo dates in this class earlier in the year? https://github.com/pulibrary/bibdata/blob/main/marc_to_solr/lib/embargo_date_extractor.rb. The date extractor should produce a human readable version of the date for display in the note.

[rladdusaw]

Working example: https://bibdata-staging.princeton.edu/bibliographic/99127127233306421 Example with error: https://bibdata-staging.princeton.edu/bibliographic/99129112208406421

[kevinreiss]

@mzelesky the latter record is formed correctly per the discussion we had about this embargo dates, is my memory correct there? The data looks like:

<subfield code="a">This dissertation is under embargo until</subfield>
<subfield code="g">20240531.</subfield>
<subfield code="c">
A digital copy is available for viewing in the Mudd Manuscript Library reading room during the embargo period. If you are interested in this service, please fill out the Ask Us form using the following link.
</subfield>

Our code was supposed to turn the subfield g into to something was human readable when we indexed this data.

[kevinreiss]

I discussed this with @kelynch and we are going to expect that the human formatted date will be part of subfield A as in this example: https://bibdata-staging.princeton.edu/bibliographic/99127127233306421.

See https://github.com/pulibrary/etd_transformer/issues/175 for the change that will introduce this into the dissertation data that Alma will import.

[kevinreiss]

Index these four mms IDs in Alma Sandbox 99129114193106421 99129114193006421 99129114192906421 99129114192806421

[christinach]

The records are indexed and can be viewed in catalog staging. @kelynch

[kevinreiss]

Stakeholders and @kelynch have reviewed the output of the test records in catalog-staging and confirmed we can close this ticket.