You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When you click on the filter to see the excluded records, the query doesn't return the 1.1 million-ish records, instead only 279 records, and this seems to be related to how the query is parsed. The FOSSIL_SPECIMEN make it in, but not the "Environmental DNA" contentType
The moment we entered anything remotely complex into a filter value the chance that this would work was reduced. Given the very wide variety of inputs possible, this is the most robust solution:
Added a field to QualityCategory for the inverseFilter. This permits overriding the value that is automatically generated and sometimes incorrect.
Updated the UI to put in a warning when the inverseFilter may be required.
@peggynewman I gave this a try on test and it's looking ok to me. Since you initially raised it, could you also give it a try and confirm you're happy with the changes?
In an all data query (https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=) with the DQ filters on, there are an expected 1.1 million- ish records excluded based on record type (ie basis of record).
When you click on the filter to see the excluded records, the query doesn't return the 1.1 million-ish records, instead only 279 records, and this seems to be related to how the query is parsed. The FOSSIL_SPECIMEN make it in, but not the "Environmental DNA" contentType
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrence/search?q=&qualityProfile=ALA&disableAllQualityFilters=true&fq=basisOfRecord%3A%22FOSSIL_SPECIMEN%22+%28%2BbasisOfRecord%3AMATERIAL_SAMPLE+%2BcontentTypes%3AEnvironmental+DNA%29#tab_mapView
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: