changing privacy invalidates records

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. search for public data you own
2. in list view, select a record(s)
3. change from public to private, or hide email

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Only privacy (of record or email) should change. Instead the record is 
invalidated, and the error is listed as "Taxonomic Classification Unknown". 

Please use labels and text to provide additional information.
The review status remains unchanged, so you now have invalid records with a 
reliable review. 

Original issue reported on code.google.com by tom.alln...@gmail.com on 13 Apr 2011 at 6:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is very critical, but may be a way to revalidation !!!

Original comment by ajmrakot...@gmail.com on 21 Oct 2011 at 8:18

• Changed state: Started

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Exactly, it pass through the validation process so validateTaxonomy too, it 
depends on the latest TA

Original comment by ajmrakot...@gmail.com on 21 Oct 2011 at 8:48

[GoogleCodeExporter]

org.rebioma.server.services.OccurrenceServiceImpl.java -> 
line 345 : validationService.validate(occurrences); 
so that's normal because it's part of "update"

Original comment by ajmrakot...@gmail.com on 21 Oct 2011 at 9:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by ajmrakot...@gmail.com on 24 Oct 2011 at 12:02

• Changed state: Waiting
• Added labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

So the behavior in the original issue (invalidation after change) seems to be 
the result of a taxonomy change; after saving, the record is put through 
validation,  and if the taxonomy changed, and the taxonomy is no longer valid, 
then the record would then be invalidated.  

This needs to be confirmed.

And the question remains about review status. I just checked another record, 
changed from public to private. The validity remained the same (valid), 
however, review status changed from "Positive" to "Null". Meaning this is now 
queued for review again, even though nothing about the record has changed 
(apart from privacy). 

So if this is the intended behavior, we need to restrict this to changes that 
should in fact trigger a re-review, not any change. 

Original comment by tom.alln...@gmail.com on 9 May 2012 at 9:41