DRYD-1390: Consultation #285
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mikejritter
force-pushed
the
nagpra-consultation
branch
from
7311e8e to
7549ba9
Compare
ray-lee
requested changes
Jul 3, 2024
tomcat-main/src/main/resources/defaults/base-instance-vocabularies.xml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What does this do?
Why are we doing this? (with JIRA link)
Jira: https://collectionspace.atlassian.net/browse/DRYD-1390
The consultation procedure is part of the 8.1 updates for improving NAGPRA workflows. It adds the ability to document the consultation process itself.
How should this be tested? Do these changes have associated tests?
Dependencies for merging? Releasing to production?
I wasn't sure what to use for the
mini=summaryfield, so hopefully theinvolvedPartyis sufficient.Has the application documentation been updated for these changes?
No
Did someone actually run this code to verify it works?
@mikejritter ran the integration tests locally