Complete Aardvark field method refactor #199
Conversation
Why these changes are being introduced: * Update Aardvark class to use current field method conventions for the remaining fields How this addresses that need: * Add field methods and associated private methods for format, identifiers, languages, links, locations, notes, provider, publishers, rights, subjects, and summary * Refactor get_links and get_source_link method to avoid error if links field is None * Update unit tests with current conventions Side effects of this change: * None Relevant ticket(s): * https://mitlibraries.atlassian.net/browse/TIMX-285
| @classmethod | ||
| def get_rights(cls, source_record: dict, source: str) -> list[timdex.Rights] | None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps this should be broken into submethods but I wanted to get your thoughts to see if it's worth it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I hate to say it, but I think I'd agree. I could see methods like:
get_access_rights()get_license_rights()get_rights_and_rights_holders()get_gismit_rights()+get_gisogm_rights()(and perhaps these triggered by what source logic)
An intersting one for sure though, it's like a big collapsing of multiple fields into one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Deep down, I knew it had to be done 🙃
| if links := cls.get_links(source_record): | ||
| url_links = [link for link in links if link.kind == "Website"] | ||
| if len(url_links) == 1: | ||
| return url_links[0].url |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a good reminder on how fuzzy things get over time... I don't think we'd ever expect to have multiple kind=Website coming back from gismit or gisogm records?
If we did, then we might want another scenario handler for when len() > 1, but if not, I think it's good as-is.
UPDATE: keeping comment, but after looking more closely at get_links(), I think we're okay, given that kind=Website is only set for a single possible key in the dct_references_s JSON/dictionary values.
| @classmethod | ||
| def get_rights(cls, source_record: dict, source: str) -> list[timdex.Rights] | None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I hate to say it, but I think I'd agree. I could see methods like:
get_access_rights()get_license_rights()get_rights_and_rights_holders()get_gismit_rights()+get_gisogm_rights()(and perhaps these triggered by what source logic)
An intersting one for sure though, it's like a big collapsing of multiple fields into one.
* Create submethods for get_rights * Rename get_dates submethods for consistency
|
Prompted a little more refactoring than expected so re-requesting review |
| rights: list[timdex.Rights] = [] | ||
| kind_access_to_files = "Access to files" | ||
| rights.extend(cls._get_access_rights(source_record)) | ||
| rights.extend(cls._get_license_rights(source_record)) | ||
| rights.extend(cls._get_rights_and_rights_holders(source_record)) | ||
| if source == "gisogm": | ||
| rights.extend(cls._get_gisogm_rights(kind_access_to_files)) | ||
| elif source == "gismit": | ||
| rights.extend(cls._get_gismit_rights(source_record, kind_access_to_files)) | ||
| return rights or None |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🔥 Looks great! The sub-methods are clear, this higher level method is clear, easy to follow.
| if len(url_links) == 1: | ||
| return url_links[0].url | ||
| if links := cls.get_links(source_record): | ||
| url_links = [link for link in links if link.kind == "Website"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[Non-blocking] Could be updated to:
if (links := cls.get_links(source_record)) and (url_links := [link for link in links if link.kind == "Website"]
):
return url_links[0].urlThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Good suggestion, thanks!
* Refactor get_source_link method * Update dependencies to address new safety vulnerability * Updates to address linting errors * Add XMLTransformer.record_is_deleted unit test
Purpose and background context
Refactors remaining
Aardvarkfield methods to align with the conventions developed since this class was initially created.How can a reviewer manually see the effects of these changes?
Run the following command to see that the Aardvark class transform still transforms a source file:
Includes new or updated dependencies?
NO
Changes expectations for external applications?
NO
What are the relevant tickets?
Developer
Code Reviewer(s)