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)
1)The Download CSV button in Resource Search/Browse view is manipulated in the (Global, Personal, or Default Repository) Preferences area. It will only return 9 fields with preset values.
Custom reports enables export of more information, but user is looking for information stored in Description fields such as General notes, (presumably Content Description = Scope and content). This sounds like something we use Navicat for.
Awaiting more information--David will ask reporter about their use case and whether a different ticket to allow custom reports for a faceted search (ANW-1186) will resolve their issue.
Awaiting more information--David will confirm with reporter what exactly they are looking for.
I was able to reproduce the capitalization/translation issue, but only for a subset of the first listed container type values in the drop down pick list (Box through Reel). The second half of the list (Flat-File-Folder through Map Drawer) do not seem to be affected by this error and are displaying consistently across the dropdown, editable form, and the non-editable form.
I also noticed other slight display inconsistencies across the dropdown pick list, editable form and the non-editable form, and card heading for some multi-word values, for example “Flat-File-Folder” displays “Flat-file-folder” in the card heading once a value is chosen and saved.
Additionally there are duplicate values for Box and Folder in the pick list. The first “Box” and “Folder” in the list are affected by the reported display inconsistency issues, but duplicate “Box” and “Folder” values do not. How are values ordered/sorted in the pick list?
I recommend passing the original issue as valid, and discussing the new adjacent issues as a group.
I’d like to confirm whether subject source display is already supported via local configuration, and if so why that is not sufficient for their needs. Additionally whether this request is about making that feature directly available in the PUI versus adding filtering by subject source.
Pass
Awaiting more information--Beth confirming with reporter exactly what the reporter is requesting
Confirming that merging restrictions does not work. Agree that this feature should work; recommend passing.
Is there broad interest in this? It seems like “role” is better served by reporting on repository access, and I don’t know how useful institutional ID numbers are.
Pass--Alexander will also add more steps to replicate for clarification
Awaiting more information--Will punt to next month so we can ask Regine clarification questions
Was able to reproduce. I think this is a relatively simple fix? Just pass the page from the search result to redirect after. May need to make clear that this needs to be handled for activate/deactivate action (from search) and edit (another page).
Was able to reproduce this. Agree that this is annoying – basically prevents use of oai_ead for ListRecord request if you have any invalid ead anywhere. Upon looking more into OAPMH – is this actually expected behavior? Does OAIPMH require valid XML? See OAIPMH 3.2. If so, I’m not really sure what a fix would look like if we passed. Is this a feature request to clean EAD to ensure valid XML? I don’t think we can simply skip an invalid request in a GetRecord request?
A work around might be to use ListIdentifier to get all identifiers then fetch use GetRecord for each identifier to get the oai_ead? Would allow you to handle invalid records.
Pass--Dalton to add one more example and expand scope of ticket to all long lists
Awaiting more information--Alexander is asking listserv questions about OAI
Could not entirely replicate. When I suppressed the container type for an AO container subrecord, the container type is listed unchanged in view mode except it says “null [indicator]” in the tree. The container type is also not listed as a drop down menu option in edit mode. Need more information.
It makes sense to me that the CUI field is only free text so it is less prescriptive. Recommend passing.
Confirmed issue. Collection organization page also combines Creators, Sources, and Subjects into a single list, which makes the lack of relators and terms even more confusing. Seems like it’s trying to be a summary but going too far in leaving out important details.
Seems like a reasonable request to me, unless there are data storage issues I’m not thinking of.
This one is a little outside of my wheelhouse. The workflow makes sense to me but I’d like to discuss it with the group for confirmation. If the workflow is valid, then I think the process should be improved.
Recommend Pass. This is a verified bug that leaves the data in a broken state.