Skip to content

change(inclusion request): add the user during transform#556

Merged
kpsherva merged 3 commits into
CERNDocumentServer:masterfrom
zubeydecivelek:request-reviewers
Jul 22, 2026
Merged

change(inclusion request): add the user during transform#556
kpsherva merged 3 commits into
CERNDocumentServer:masterfrom
zubeydecivelek:request-reviewers

Conversation

@zubeydecivelek

@zubeydecivelek zubeydecivelek commented Jul 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

NOTE: I didnt tested yet

# Conflicts:
#	cds_migrator_kit/rdm/records/load/load.py
@kpsherva kpsherva moved this from In review 🔍 to In progress in Sprint Q3 2026 ☀️ Jul 22, 2026
@kpsherva kpsherva self-assigned this Jul 22, 2026
add(ep migration): review step
fix(ep migration): usage of uow
@kpsherva
kpsherva force-pushed the request-reviewers branch from 83fa570 to e5c9909 Compare July 22, 2026 09:46
@kpsherva kpsherva moved this from In progress to In review 🔍 in Sprint Q3 2026 ☀️ Jul 22, 2026

@palkerecsenyi palkerecsenyi left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! I haven't reviewed the bash scripts but the python code looks good to me

if len(self.ep_approval) > 3:
raise UnexpectedValue(
message="EP approval history has more/less than 2 entries",
message="EP approval history has more/less than 3 entries",

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
message="EP approval history has more/less than 3 entries",
message="EP approval history has more than 3 entries",

Comment on lines +126 to +133
reviewing = next(
(
item
for item in history
if item.get("status") == EP_APPROVAL_REVIEWING_STATUS
),
None,
)

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is this for when it is referred for additional review?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes is this additional step

self.waiting_entry.get("submitted_by"), "submitter"
),
topic={"record": restricted_recid},
expires_at=expires_at,

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we decided not to have request expiry, at least for new approval requests. I'm presuming if you set an expiry date in the past it works without erroring? I guess it is good to migrate the expiry dates of old requests.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we did for the live instance, for the past records I want to keep the date for completeness

},
"7c568753-550b-4b48-8d76-461181973100": {
# aleph
"label": "EP approval", # shown in UI buttons/headings

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just fyi, we now also add committee_name to these configs so the UI knows what the actual approving committee is called. But this is only needed for the UI.

e.g. "committee_name": "EP Board"

@kpsherva
kpsherva force-pushed the request-reviewers branch from 2e51422 to 73a888b Compare July 22, 2026 15:32
@kpsherva
kpsherva merged commit adf0c0b into CERNDocumentServer:master Jul 22, 2026
2 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation Bot moved this from In review 🔍 to To release 🤖 in Sprint Q3 2026 ☀️ Jul 22, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants