Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device. Atlassian cookies and tracking notice, (opens new window)
ANW-2450 - Confirmed issue. It seems like certain Date types trigger additional text, while others do not. It would make sense that all date types trigger additional text (Particularly if multiple dates are present). ie Inclusive and Single Date do not have additional text, but bulk includes “Majority of material found within.” Recommend passing
ANW-2492: Confirmed many of the issues though honestly was overwhelmed by this query (so many acronyms!). Below are my responses to their three bullet points:
Re: Reflow - I’m not entirely sure how to confirm their test of reflow that is their first and most adamant bullet point.
Re: Langauge - In the test instance of 4.1.1 there is a label for language.
Re: page numbers and screen readers - I was unsure of the best way to test this
Re: Issue with Filter and Screen Reader - I was again unsure of the best way to test this.
This ticket is relatively new and given the importance of accessibility to LOC, I feel like we should try to address their recommendations given they were found with the most recent version?
Did not replicate issue in sandbox - reports only showed records within a single repository. Either this has been fixed or it’s an issue just with the reporter’s instance.
Note that this should be split into two tickets, but I couldn’t find that it had. Second issue has been solved in the meantime, so I think we can take it out. Currently, classifications work more like resource records than search/browse results, so they should follow the order set by the archivist. But they don’t do that either, right now. Recommend deciding if they should continue to have set order or sortable order, and then passing the ticket to make that happen.
Dev/Pri reviewed in 2023 and were waiting to see if https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1509 resolved the issue. The issue persists for at least agent and subject records in search results. Recommend passing.
This user is requesting the ability to bulk update File URIs for Digital Objects. Testing in the sandbox confirms that this functionality is now available if the Digital Objects are attached to a Resource Record via the Bulk Archival Object Spreadsheet and Bulk Archival Object Updater in Background Jobs. However, it is unclear to me whether this functionality is available for standalone Digital Objects.
Testing in the sandbox confirms this functionality is now available via the Bulk Archival Object Spreadsheet and Bulk Archival Object Updater in Background Jobs. Recommend close ticket.
Dev Pri looked at this ticket circa 2021. Would require more info to move forward. Not sure how much interest in this feature request amongst community. Close for now and others could ask to reopen if interest re-emerges?
Dev Pri asked for more info in 2021. This reminds me of some of the recent discussions about using various archivesspace modules for tracking work/processes. Regardless, this ticket is stale and has minimal info. Recommend closing
I agree with Dan’s comment from a 2021 Dev Pri meeting, that the label printer was developed to meet Yale’s specifications, and that any change will require a detailed specification and rationale for change.
This would be good to diagnose and fix, but there’s no information in the ticket about replicating the bug. I tried roughly following the steps in the video on sandbox but couldn’t replicate it.