...
We could just work with version 2.7 until we have a completed mapping, and then we could work with 2.7.4 for the next updated cycle on a separate iteration
Daniel Michelson: If things change in the upgrade, wouldn’t that be a good way of knowing what they are?
Christine: From a development perspective, we would know which issues have been worked on
Daniel: Changes to the exporter in the new version would be something which was presumably already tested, and we wouldn’t need to perform a separate test from us
Christine: There shouldn’t be additional testing required, but the mapping itself will still need to be updated. Should developers be feeding any of this information into this Sub-Team
Greg: We need to think about what we are doing; our pace is slow and this is a very labor-intensive
Updating the mappings for “unittitle” elements, as an example, required several variations of “unittitle” elements to be provided for the test import
It is actually easier to understand the mappings by looking directly at the code for the exporter
It might be possible to have things generated from comments from the code
Ruby Yard: This is in place for ArchivesSpace, but the rest of the documentation is moving away from being so attached to the codebase
The downside to this is that we are limiting the audience who might be able to contribute to this
We might still try this, but we need to be certain that this is even possible
Christine: One of the things which the ArchivesSpace did try was to try to extract the information from the code itself, but it could not be successfully implemented. It might still be possible.
Greg: For reference: https://github.com/archivesspace/archivesspace/blob/master/backend/app/converters/ead_converter.rb
Greg had tested the conversion of “unittitle” elements with https://github.com/archivesspace/archivesspace/blob/master/backend/app/converters/ead_converter.rb#L167
Daniel: For some types of data, there are relatively straightforward cases for testing imports
Is there any way to determine which of these cases might be more straightforward?
Request to have Greg write up a description for what they found when testing the importation of “unittitle” elements
Perhaps invite Laney to the next meeting in order to determine whether or not automating documentation generation from the code base is possible
It should be noted that it is more efficient to update the code comments during updates to the code base if this is indeed possible
Documenting our Review Process
Kevin drafted a Confluence page (Import/export mapping review process)
Perhaps referencing the code in certain cases might be more straightforward for discussion the import process and mappings