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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(lib): Enhances
get_parties_from_case_name
method #4971feat(lib): Enhances
get_parties_from_case_name
method #4971Changes from 12 commits
e31d9f3
067b00e
ca278cd
ed12d5f
ba2735b
fd31aa3
3128bbf
7442b1e
41ea9cd
fb9e516
2ac6f89
1aa355b
efa2ac6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This one looks like it's actually wrong, but not sure we can do much better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also from #4802 (comment) it seems that there might be cases where the words
In
orof
are not part of the party names.For instance something like:
In re: Advantage LLC
Is this possible in bankruptcy?
If so, in these cases, the indexed party would be
In re: Advantage LLC
, which doesn't seem correct. In district courts, we simply ignore anything that doesn't have a valid separator, but here, it seems more complicated since we're performing cleanup before splitting parties.Perhaps, in these cases, we could completely ignore anything that contains
In
orof
? Or we could look for examples of these case names and check if we can identify a common pattern for cleanup?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I looked into how often "In re" appears in case names. After refining the dataset to include more records (2 million total records with RECAP source or a derived one) and searching, I found only 36 instances (0.0018%) where a case name begins with "In re." A few examples are:
I think we should add a step to the cleanup process that removes "In re" before we try to figure out the party names.
For reference, here's a CSV file containing these 36 instances:
case_names_re_recap.csv
@albertisfu Let me know what you think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! Yeah, it seems like this type of case name is not very common.
I think we can try removing
in re
orin re:
before splitting the parties; however, that would also require removing other common terms that seem to be typical in this type of case name structure but do not appear to be part of the parties, such as:Matter of
Receivership of
Appearances of
Not sure if it's possible to compile a list of all potential terms that might appear in a bankruptcy case name but are not part of the parties.
Additionally, some case names don't seem to contain parties at all.
In re Matter of Ascendium Replacement Filings
In re: Proceedings to Review Attorney Usage of CM/ECF Filing Credentials
In re: Proceedings to Enforce Fed.R.Bankr.9036
In Re: Proceedings to Enforce Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9036 as to various high-volume paper-notice recipients relating to cases pending within the District of Connecticut.
In re Matter of Proof of Claim Replacement Filings
In re Appointments and Reappointments of Ohio Sout
In these cases, if we remove "in re," it might not be correct to treat the remaining text as a party.
Another option is to simply ignore any case name that contains
in re
orin re:
and not index parties from those cases. Perhaps @mlissner has an opinion on this?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For bankruptcy, I'm fine with just not indexing anything that starts with
in re
orin the matter of
, etc.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we're adding a special method for splitting parties in bankruptcy cases both here and in
prepare_parties
, I’d suggest adding a test case similar to those intest_index_party_from_case_name_when_parties_are_not_available
to confirm that the correct method is selected for bankruptcy.I think two additional test cases should be enough:
case_name
when creating a bankruptcy docket (which will use the logic inprepare_parties
).case_name
(which will use the logic indocument_fields_to_update
).Currently, in
test_index_party_from_case_name_when_parties_are_not_available
, the factorydocket_with_no_parties
comes from a bankruptcy court. To differentiate the methodget_parties_from_case_name_bankr
, it would be necessary to change the court in this factory to a district court and create a new factory for bankruptcy. You could rely on the expected parties for the assertion, considering thatget_parties_from_case_name_bankr
performs some cleanup, or simply confirm that the correct method is being called using a mock. The same approach can be applied for thecase_name
update test case for bankruptcy.I don’t think it'd necessary to replicate the rest of the assertions from
test_index_party_from_case_name_when_parties_are_not_available
for bankruptcy since they share common logic that hasn’t changed.