-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
The return of Proboscidea #203
Comments
It would appear that the issue here is a lack of higher taxonomy when comparing the matches. Names that are excluded do not get an accepted parent id in the LTC, so the Proboscidea document in the index doesn't have a value for kingdom, phylum, etc. Thus the match is downgraded. Need to find out if there was a decision made not to place excluded names within the hierarchy, or if it's an bug |
The commit "Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into issue-188" introduced the ability to determine if a parentID is added based on the status of the taxon entry. It appears that as a default, ParentIDs aren't added for "EXCLUDED" taxon entries. Updated the entry for dr7933 in Ala-taxon-config.json to set ParentOutput for EXCLUDE to true - On rebuilding the taxonomy, and rebuilding the index, the test now matches ALA_DR7933_1 |
See https://lists.ala.org.au/speciesListItem/list/dr7933?q=Proboscidea
The result should match ALA_DR7933_1 and be excluded but instead matches https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/da144fb5-e7fa-4092-b442-6c505aef731f
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: