Skip to content
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

Deleted Instruments causing DOI update to fail #516

Open
1 task
praveenphatate opened this issue Jun 8, 2023 · 1 comment
Open
1 task

Deleted Instruments causing DOI update to fail #516

praveenphatate opened this issue Jun 8, 2023 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@praveenphatate
Copy link
Contributor

praveenphatate commented Jun 8, 2023

Overview

In the actual database, when an Instrument is deleted, it cascades and will be removed from linked objects such as DOIs. However, the draft for the DOI will still contain the instrument, and the cascade is not reflected there.

Because the CMR update process relies on drafts, when it detects that it needs to push an update to a DOI, it will include the now deleted instrument with the update. This update will fail, because the instrument has been deleted.

System-Wide Long-term solution

Draft Cascading

When cascade deletes happen in the system, auto-published drafts should be made to remove these objects. So, if an instrument is deleted and a cascade is required to remove it from a DOI, then an update draft removing that instrument from the DOI should be automatically created and published.

Draft fixing

The existing database does not contain this history of drafts. We would need to figure out a way to retroactively represent these cascades in our drafts.

CMR Update Short-term solution

Before the cmr updater publishes a doi update, it should double check all its campaigns, platforms, instruments, and flights to ensure that they still exist.

Tasks

  1. CarsonDavis
@heidimok
Copy link
Contributor

Checked in with @praveenphatate on progress for this issue. There is a short term fixed here: #520 which needs review.

But we would still need to talk about if there is a better solution for it in the longer-term.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants