TTO-207 investigate discrepancy in hathifiles full vs. incremental #42
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
`cutoff` variable used in `generate_hathifile.rb` was excluding HTIDs that arguably changed due to changes in the catalog record. This patch gets rid of that variable and treats all HTIDs as having been affected by the record change (thus including them in the resulting hathifile) regardless of their 974(d) update date. Tests should be refactored at some point but I consider it out of scope for a TTO issue.
mwarin
approved these changes
May 1, 2024
|
Refactoring issue added as suggested. Along with the all-important "DRY" badge for future issues! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
cutoffvariable used ingenerate_hathifile.rbis currently excluding HTIDs that arguably should be treated as modified due to changes in the host catalog record. This patch gets rid of that variable and treats all HTIDs on the record as having been affected by the record change (thus including them in the resulting hathifile) regardless of their 974(d) update date.Tests should be refactored at some point but I consider it out of scope for a TTO issue.
Includes a completely unrelated added test for
update_hathifile_listing.rb(it "removes existing files that are too old" do ...) since Coveralls got irked at the slight decrease in test coverage due to the code deletion that is the main focus of this PR. Are you happy now, Coveralls??