merge datagov into master #52
Conversation
…o latest versions
…o latest versions
…o latest versions
…o latest versions
* Add bureauCode class to DCAT writer * Update logic in BureauCode. Add ProgramCode class and update references in dcat_us class
…ncies to latest versions
…o latest versions
added Iso19115-2 Language processing to dcatus
Adds support for distribution and distributor to ISO 19115-2 reader
Adds test for license field to ISO 19115-2 to DCAT transform
add describedbytype and describedby processing
Merge master into datagov
fix test and fixture for described by and described by type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm of the mind that we should be guided by our tests as this is just too massive to do anything but a cursory review of.
Question though: would it make more sense to merge the DCAT-US base branch into master and then merge our stuff in on top of that, so we can easily see what we've changed outside the v2 / v3 readers.
| arm64-darwin-22 | ||
| x86_64-linux | ||
| arm64-darwin-23 | ||
| x86_64-darwin-23 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we might need to re-add the x86_64-linux platform back in to get it build in CI.
| 'is missing in \'gmd:distributionFormat\'' | ||
| hResponseObj[:readerExecutionMessages] << msg | ||
| hResponseObj[:readerExecutionPass] = false | ||
| return hFormat |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like some more clarity from Jonathan about when to return nil vs an empty metadata object.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i agree. i have this as an improvement in the -2 reader ticket
i think this is a good idea. i'll do this. |
The merge-base changed after approval.
related to #4923
datagov is adding the following features to master