Fix relationType display value bug #10926
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cmbz
added
FY25 Sprint 8
|
Hi @qqmyers - when I tested this PR in Internal, I could not see the "Relation Type" field on the UI of edit dataset metadata page so I couldn't test this. Please see screenshot below:
Steps:
Expected Result: Relation Type field should be displayed under Related Publication section. |
|
I'm guessing that step 6. Update metadata blocks of the Upgrade instructions for v6.4 wasn't done on that machine. Once the new citation metadata block is installed, the field should be there. (Could then be issues with indexing if step 7 update solr schema wasn't done.) |
|
Testing Complete - fix looks good. Merging PR. |
pdurbin
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2024
JayanthyChengan
added a commit
to scholarsportal/dataverse
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 13, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What this PR does / why we need it: The recent changes to include more information in the XML sent to DataCite, including the new relationType child field for related publications, is sending the display value of that field rather than the real CVV value. DataCite is rejecting values that do not match it's schema. In English, any of the values that are multiple words, e.g.
IsSupplementTo, having the display valueIs Supplement To, cause DOI updates to fail and therefor for dataset publication to fail. (In other languages, presumably all values would fail.) Dataset that do not have a Related Publication entry, or have a default null value for the relationType, are unaffected (nulls are turned into an IsSupplementTo value in code which does not rely on the display value).This PR make a simple change to include the CVV value itself rather than display value.
Which issue(s) this PR closes:
Special notes for your reviewer:The change is made in the DatasetVersion method which is used to create jsonld and json for other purposed - the other uses right now do not use the relationType value at all, but, if/when they do, it seems like the real CVV value is what should be sent.
Suggestions on how to test this: Configure Dataverse to use DataCite, add a publication with the Is Supplement To relationType and make sure publication succeeds, that there is no error in the log, that DataCite Fabrica shows the information as expected.
Does this PR introduce a user interface change? If mockups are available, please link/include them here:
Is there a release notes update needed for this change?: This is probably patch/announce worthy.
Additional documentation: