identifier counter bug

[Roger Rutishauser]

Hi,

I think the identifier counter is not working as it should.

Setup:

AtoM 2.6.4

Identification mask: activated; #i

The counter is currently at 11332

Steps to reproduce:

- Create new archival description.

  title: test1

  identifier: 11332 (auto generate)

- Create new archival description.

  title: test2

  identifier: 11333 (auto generate)

- Modify test1

  change identifier, again with automatic generation of identifier.

  identifier now set to 11334

- Create new archival description

  --> the bug appears here, when the auto-generated identifier is again 11334, instead of 11335

- Create new archival description

  now, the identifier is 11335

Seems the counter only increments when used for new descriptions, but not when existing descriptions are given a new identifier by using the "generate identifier" link.

Best regards, Roger

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Roger, 

Thanks for this report. I've reproduced the behavior and have filed an issue ticket here: 

• https://projects.artefactual.com/issues/13632
  

Cheers, 

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

he / him

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/3595c1c2-459e-44da-9a3a-145bf9a567aan%40googlegroups.com.

[Roger Rutishauser]

Thank you, Dan. 

If you have a quick fix for this in advance, it would be much appreciated.

Cheers, Roger

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Roger, 

Sadly, I don't! At this time I am actually working on a different project, and the AtoM team is very focused on finalizing the 2.7 release. However, now that we have an issue, this is something we can track and hopefully address for a future release. 

For now, your best bet will be to recommend an internal policy: if updating an existing identifier, check the counter number in Settings and then manually increment it yourself after adding your new identifier if you would like them all to be unique. 

Regards, 

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

he / him

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/4c35b510-0c63-4c1f-b92b-7677767b0291n%40googlegroups.com.

[Roger Rutishauser]

Fine, thank you Dan! Cheers

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Roger, 

Your best bet would be to contact in...@artefactual.com to discuss options. 

Keep in mind, as recently discussed in the forum here, that Artefactual is moving away from a bounty-based model of maintenance and development. One of the reasons that AtoM is difficult to maintain is due to its monolithic architecture, resulting from adding any feature someone is willing to pay for and then dozens of related configuration settings to make said features work more broadly for everyone. It has resulted in an application that has some very complex features that only a small number of AtoM users actually employ or features that are left incomplete or too specific for everyone to benefit from (for example, the generated finding aids still being based only on the RAD standard templates since a Canadian institution sponsored the work they needed and no more), while at the same time being significantly behind on major dependency upgrades and maintenance work (since users typically do not want to sponsor such work unless it is absolutely required for a feature they want to implement). 

As explained in the linked post, we are trying instead to take a more intentional, product-driven and User Experience-informed approach to development as we consider both AtoM's immediate future and what will eventually replace it. Our core development trajectory will still very much be informed by the needs and priorities of our clients and user community, but not by whoever is willing to pay first. In the long-term, this should mean more consistent releases, better roadmapping, regular maintenance work and upgrades - but in the short-term as we try to find a way to do all of this sustainably while keeping our prices as affordable as we can, one of the outcomes is less bounty-based sponsored development. 

All this to say: it's useful to know that this issue is a priority for you - I will certainly let our Maintainers know about this thread, so they can review this bug as they prepare for 2.7.2 and beyond. And if you are interested in seeing it prioritized even further, you can try contacting our Info email address to discuss options - bug fixes that we would like to resolve anyway are somewhat different than feature requests, though I am not sure at this time how they may handle the request. 

Regards, 

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

he / him

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 8:01 AM Roger Rutishauser <roger.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Dan

What would it cost (sponsoring) to solve https://projects.artefactual.com/issues/13632 ? 

Cheers, Roger

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/6a0d70ac-b319-433d-b35a-ba01353d7197n%40googlegroups.com.

[Roger Rutishauser]

Hi Dan

Thank you very much for your comments. I was unfortunately not aware that you want to move away from the bounty-based model, I have not yet read the linked thread.
I realize that custom special requests can't or rarely be accommodated. However, in this case here I assumed it was something else since it was a bug.
I'm not going to write a mail and put unnecessary pressure, the bug fix will come when it comes, that's perfectly fine. I just thought maybe our customer is willing to pay something on it, and that's why I asked.

Best regards, Roger