Closed mietcls closed 1 year ago
@mietcls Was able to reproduce the error manually but we'd probably need a mock author in the test DB to pick in tests, or should we use the real person's name?
@verheyenkoen I think mock users in the back-office test environment would probably be a good idea, to be able to catch the cases?
If we want to replace the current input text boxes (first_name and last_name) by one (full_name), then users also will have to be aware of how to enter. Now first name and last name are concatenated in that order, and searched on. If someone assumes "last-name, first-name" for whatever reason, then he might find nothing or the wrong person (my name in reverse often has that result).
Also means that we have to fill full_name
for every contributor. Otherwise one cannot add an external contributor with just a full name.
Anyway, we can already remove the requirement in biblio frontend for first name and last name in advance (i.e. prefer full_name if provided)
Other note: if we need the first and last name for external users, then my proposal won't really work, because there is no trust worthy solution to split a full username into first and last name.
This is a case of falsehoods programmers believe about names (And that's just names of people, since there's a separate discussion about expanding contributors to include legal entities as well. Anyhow, the scope of this issue is names of people.)
So, on the dev
branch, with the latest improvements to the contributor code by @nics, this is what I currently can do:
Proposal:
[missing]
string / placeholder, in the record itself.@mietcls @nics I've implemented my proposal
Bug description
Cannot add author without first name.
Steps to Reproduce
Screenshots
Expected behavior
We require a first or a last name, not both. If this is not possible: at least not for known UGent authors.
Note: Is it time to rethink the "full name – first- and last name" idea?
Automatic testing scenario
Need to be checked if this is correct (depending on the possibilities described in "expected behaviour", but is this description for a test high-level enough @verheyenkoen?
Additional context
According to the reviewers, we used to be able to add those names when entering "missing".