Add DutyOfCare Procedure

[mikejritter]

What does this do?

• Add dutyofcare recordtype

Why are we doing this? (with JIRA link)
Jira: https://collectionspace.atlassian.net/browse/DRYD-1332

This is one of the procedures for the NAGPRA support we're working on for the next release.

How should this be tested? Do these changes have associated tests?

• Sanity check the changes first
  • npm run lint
  • npm run test
• Run the devserver
• Create a dutyofcare and check that all fields save
• Check the advanced search fields to make sure the messages are consistent

Dependencies for merging? Releasing to production?
I didn't any fields to the advanced search config. I was going to go through the fields and look for good candidates, but I know there's also been talk about reworking that page. Will bring it up in the weekly meeting as it seems like something good to discuss as a group.

Has the application documentation been updated for these changes?
No

Did someone actually run this code to verify it works?
@mikejritter tested against a local install

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.20%. Comparing base (7fcfde9) to head (7ed4c88).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #212      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.20%   98.20%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         555      562       +7     
  Lines       12509    12542      +33     
  Branches     2583     2585       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        12285    12317      +32     
- Misses        221      222       +1     
  Partials        3        3              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ray-lee]

A few comments below, mostly minor consistency things.

[mikejritter]

@ray-lee I just push a few commits that I believe resolves everything. I renamed the ID message to number and removed the narrow column definition to be more in line with the other procedures.

On the app layer all the field names were simplified and missing attributes are present. In the services layer the xsd was updated for the field names.

[ray-lee]

My comment on the redundancy of "Duty of care title" was really just about the label, since people see it and I want to keep the UI from being too busy. I don't care all that much about the field name, so as far as I'm concerned you didn't need to change it. But it's fine that you did. Kristina may care more about how the fields are named.

[mikejritter]

Yea, I've definitely been a little bit more paranoid about the field names from the qa testing. I didn't really see the need for dutyofcare_commons.dutyofcare* in the db when revising the fields, but I'll talk w/ Kristina about it as well for the upcoming procedures.

I was planning on asking her for the data qa testing on dev once the procedures go up as well since it might be overwhelming to do the 6 or 7 new procedures we're getting at once.