Add proofread status field to sources and browse sources table #1735
Conversation
- indicates whether the source has chants that are not proofread - updated on chant save signal - ignores volpiano_proofread field - add management command to update this field for all sources
…ed to be proofread - only accessed by project managers - sortable column header
|
Two comments:
|
|
Good points, thanks! |
| @@ -103,6 +105,23 @@ def update_source_melody_count(instance) -> None: | |||
| source.save() | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| def update_source_proofread_status(instance) -> None: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm concerned about a similar point to #1741 here.
If there is a chant in a source where there is no manuscript_full_text given, then I presume that the manuscript_full_text_proofread will not be True. But should that count as the source not being fully proofread?
Just some quick querying and it looks like there are a number of sources (even in the CANTUS segment) where chants like this exist...
Now, it could be that we want to count these as not proofread because we need a proofreader to come along, realize there's no manuscript_full_text and put it in, but if not we will need to adjust this logic.
Maybe @annamorphism can weigh in here.
For example, here's a chant where there is a standard spelling full text which has been proofread, but no manuscript spelling full text (and therefore a False manuscript_full_text_proofread field): https://cantusdatabase.org/chant/677608
Do we want this chant to count against its source's all_chant_texts_proofread calculation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm...I guess they are two separate questions. On the one hand, since this MS seems to have some chants with full texts and not others, I might want somebody to put that in. But that seems like a separate task from making sure that everything that is there already is accurate (and can be done by a different person--not necessarily somebody with proofreader status.) And (as with the Volpiano field), there's a different sort of accountability to "this extra information is missing" from "this information is wrong".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could also ask Debra ... the purpose of this notification is really to help you and Debra (and any other proofreaders) know where your attention is needed, so whatever you would like best. Ultimately, these kinds of distinctions would be nice for you to be able to search for on your own (for example, I don't think you can currently search for chants without a full text? But I think that's something we add when we move toward Solr search.
|
Debra has clarified that we will want a separate field that is not reliant on these chant checkboxes. This new field should indicate that all of the fields in the record have been proofread. See #1762 Moving forward I think that we should either change the column name for this field, since it is misleading, or we can pause/remove this feature and implement #1762. Thoughts? |
This pull request introduces a new field to the Source model that tracks whether the source has any chants that are not fully proofread. The field is updated via the save signal on the Chant model and ignores the
volpiano_proofreadfield (as requested by Debra in meetings).all_chants_proofreadboolean field to the Source model.Resolves #1492