Determine if other records had their textual and translation notes deleted in 2022-10-19 ingest

[wlpotter]

The files coming in from Box on 2022-10-19 (cf. #160 for an example) may have had their textual and translation notes deleted. I'm not sure but I want to double check.

I think the best way will be to take the dump from Box, find non-empty textual or translation notes, and then see if the current version on production is missing those notes. This should tell us if this is an isolated problem or if we need to address a processing issue. Stay tuned.

[wlpotter]

Initial testing has revealed the following missing bits:

<el xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <uri>https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/228</uri>
  <textNoteMissing>true</textNoteMissing>
  <translationNoteMissing>false</translationNoteMissing>
</el>
<el xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <uri>https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/214</uri>
  <textNoteMissing>true</textNoteMissing>
  <translationNoteMissing>false</translationNoteMissing>
</el>
<el xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <uri>https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/259</uri>
  <textNoteMissing>true</textNoteMissing>
  <translationNoteMissing>false</translationNoteMissing>
</el>
<el xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <uri>https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/129</uri>
  <textNoteMissing>true</textNoteMissing>
  <translationNoteMissing>false</translationNoteMissing>
</el>
<el xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <uri>https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/257</uri>
  <textNoteMissing>true</textNoteMissing>
  <translationNoteMissing>false</translationNoteMissing>
</el>

[wlpotter]

• [x] 228.xml has an un-typed note in the version from Box, so that's why it was missing
• [x] 214.xml has an un-typed note in the version from Box, so that's why it was missing
• [x] 259.xml is the same story
• [x] 257.xml I can't find in the box folder?? The record on the server seems to have an untyped note in the edition (see the label, https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/257)
• [x] 129.xml is also missing the @type attribute.

So the verdict is, I think, to check the data template. Otherwise these were added using the cmd+e rather than the dedicated fields? Not sure yet...