Skip to content
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

Delete faulty almaMmsId mappings that are refering to local records #107

Open
TobiasNx opened this issue Dec 11, 2024 · 6 comments · May be fixed by #108
Open

Delete faulty almaMmsId mappings that are refering to local records #107

TobiasNx opened this issue Dec 11, 2024 · 6 comments · May be fixed by #108
Assignees

Comments

@TobiasNx
Copy link
Contributor

conf/maps/almaMmsId-to-rpbId.tsv has some mappings that are oviously wrong.
They are not mapped to a NZ record these would have at least 6441 at the end of the almaMmsId.
But they are also mapping to completly wrong or non existing records.

Not sure how they were mapped:

6452
991000117199706452 107t01165452
991000087399706452 107t01165454
6449
991010785389706449 107t01165591
6456
991005467559706456 929t01077759

TobiasNx added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 11, 2024
@TobiasNx TobiasNx linked a pull request Dec 11, 2024 that will close this issue
@TobiasNx
Copy link
Contributor Author

Also there are a lot of duplicate almaMmsId in the file:
e.g.

990218653550206441	929t172910
990218653550206441	929t172911
990218653550206441	929t172912
990218653550206441	929t172913
990218653550206441	929t172914
990218653550206441	929t172915
990218653550206441	929t172916
990218653550206441	929t172917
990218653550206441	929t172918
990218653550206441	929t172919
990218653550206441	929t172920
990218653550206441	929t172921
990218653550206441	929t172922
990218653550206441	929t172923
990218653550206441	929t172924
990218653550206441	929t172925
990218653550206441	929t172926
990218653550206441	929t172927
990218653550206441	929t172928
990218653550206441	929t172929
990218653550206441	929t172930
990218653550206441	929t172931
990218653550206441	929t172932
990218653550206441	929t172933
990218653550206441	929t172934
990218653550206441	929t172935
990218653550206441	929t172936

This seems to be related to https://jira.hbz-nrw.de/projects/RPB/issues/RPB-232

@TobiasNx
Copy link
Contributor Author

Does it make sense to recreate this mapping file after fixing jira.hbz-nrw.de/projects/RPB/issues/RPB-232

@acka47
Copy link
Contributor

acka47 commented Dec 11, 2024

Does it make sense to recreate this mapping file after fixing jira.hbz-nrw.de/projects/RPB/issues/RPB-232

Sounds reasonable. +1

@fsteeg
Copy link
Member

fsteeg commented Dec 12, 2024

As I commented in #108, I don't understand. As we discussed on the RPB channel recently, isn't this only the original file created here, which has then been moved to lookup-tables?

https://github.com/hbz/rpb/commits/main/conf/maps/almaMmsId-to-rpbId.tsv
https://github.com/hbz/lookup-tables/commits/master/data/almaMmsId2rpbId.tsv

@TobiasNx
Copy link
Contributor Author

TobiasNx commented Dec 12, 2024

I am not sure if they are the result of the same process. They have a diffrent size: lookup tables +14.000 and this one here has ~45.000. The one with 45.000 is based on the existing hbzId in RPB: https://rpb.lbz-rlp.de/search?location=&q=_exists_%3AhbzId

This difference in size hints that they seem to be different files.

@acka47
Copy link
Contributor

acka47 commented Dec 12, 2024

Wir können/sollten im rpb-Repo auch einfach Deutsch schreiben...

Bleibt die Frage: Wird diese Datei momentan überhaupt für irgendetwas verwendet? Wenn nicht, können und sollten wir das auf später schieben. Wie im gestrigen Treffen gesagt, müssen wir eines nach dem anderen machen. Der momentane Fokus ist auf RPB-184 und damit hat das hier nichts zu tun und verschafft uns nur zusätzliche Mental Load.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants