User points out that the earlier/later relationship is not a dated one because it’s always an earlier or later heading, so the date entry should be removed from this section. Pass.
This is definitely a confusing way to display dates. Pass.
Tentative pass, although I would like to briefly discuss whether additive changes to exports should always be optional. I couldn’t find Dev Pri notes about the original ticket, so it’s not clear why aspace_uri went in as a mandatory default.
This is a strange ticket, since information has very slowly come in about causes/reproduction. Would like to discuss with team if there’s enough to work with before passing.
Carried over from November meeting following feedback from ticket creator in response to Dev Pri query. A video was posted in ticket showing the issue for one user currently on 3.4.1. Was able to reproduce at archival object level, but is not occuring at the resource level. Recommend passing.
Confirmed. Actually unsure if this is intended or a bug. Tested with all available fields in Bulk Update, none changed the “last modified” timestamp. Note: The location field does update the “start date” to the date the Bulk Operation was completed, but the container’s “last modified” stamp is not. Recommend passing.
This ticket is proposing a audit trail functionality to track user changes in the system. Potential dashboard schema was drafted with wireframes by Staff Interface Enhancement Working Group was drafted in 2018. Suggestion was more community feedback was needed. Ticket was reviewd by Dev Pri in June 2020 and placed in awaiting more info status. Much wider changes are proposed for staff permissions in attached documentation. I think there is potentially a great deal of interest in the audit functionality proposed and recommend that we circulate this to wider community for new feedback or close this ticket and rationalise in a new ticket to just focus on audit trail functionality.
Manager User Access sort not working. Replicated in test instance and own institution’s instance and recommend passing.
I think this user is wanting to download agent information from the Browse → Agents page. There is a “Download CSV” option, but it downloads all agents. The checkboxes to the left of the Agent Type on the page seem to have no effect…I can’t tell what they are for.
It seems this user is first viewing all items of a singular value from System → Manage Controlled Value Lists → List Name. From there, “Filter by text” creates a new search that is not limited to the extent type previously viewed. I don’t think this is a bug; I think this is a case of the user not going about the search in the right way. Instead of first searching through the controlled value list and then filtering by text, they could perform a text search that includes their keyword and their extent type. i.e. “minidisc arto” would bring up the results they are looking for
I believe this will be covered by
ANW-1436
-
Getting issue details...STATUS
, which is ready for implementation.
I don’t think I’m seeing the behavior the reporter mentioned, but I am also unfamiliar with the Calculate Extent feature. However, when I create or edit an extent subrecord through the Calculate Extent window, suddenly all of the modules have expanded. Christine reported this, so she can probably explain what she reported better than I’m understanding it.
Confirmed the issue that has been reported. I can see how seeing a numerical value rather than the text would be confusing. This seems more like a bug rather than feature request if this current behavior is not intended. Recommend passing.
This is possibly due to Excel not recognizing the exported file as UTF-8 encoded. In my testing, the issue was resolved when importing the file through the “Get Data” option in Excel and making sure the file was being imported as UTF-8 is as the format.
Confirmed Issue and agree that this would be a needed update. Currently the Digital Object module opens in a new tab, but any external links or internal links to other collections open in the same tab which could be confusing for users. Recommend passing
I was unable to reproduce this error. I suspect that this may be something that has been fixed in recent updates as the repository where this reporter works is on 3.3.1 and I was unable to reproduce it in 3.4.1
Asked for more information. Concerned about differences in use cases between staff UI and PUI, and the fact that this field does not export in EAD.
The described behavior is undesirable (but could not be reproduced with the language set to English). Does it make sense to fold this into planned work for improving internationalization?
Confirmed that the Classification record “Description” field only includes text, and will not render HTML or EAD link references. It is unclear from the ticket how the reporter would like this issue addressed, and more information is needed to create a specification.
I was unable to fully reproduce this error in the testing environment. In EAD 2002, the <physfacet> is required to be nested in a <physdesc> element, and when exporting to EAD 2002 in ArchivesSpace, the Physical Facet note appears as a separate nested entry outside of the <physdesc> for the SUI Extent entry. Separate Physical Description notes are also exported in their own <physdesc> element. In EAD3 exports, however, a Physical Facet note is exported as text inside a <physdesc> element, likely because the <physfacet> element is required in EAD3 to be part of a complete <physdescstructured> entry. However, Physical Details entered in an SUI Extent entry are still exported to the <physfacet> element in EAD3.