pubdate on record summary should be nested inside rdetail_value span

Bug #1291537 reported by Jason Stephenson
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone

Bug Description

Evergreen: master as of 20140311
OpenSRF: N/A
PostgreSQL: N/A

While working on a local record summary customization, I noticed that the span containing the pubdate is not nested within the rdetail_value span of the rdetail_publisher list item, <li>. It looks to me like it should be for a number of reasons:

1. The other spans are all nested that way.
2. pubdate is part of the publisher information.
3. The code is indented as if it were nested that way.
4. It is really obvious if you View Source on a record details page.

This is really minor as it doesn't affect functionality. It might affect appearance if someone has customized their css for the rdetail_value class.

I'll throw up a branch after I get the lp bug number.

Revision history for this message
Jason Stephenson (jstephenson) wrote :

To <email address hidden>:working/Evergreen.git
 * [new branch] lp1291537_rdetail_summary_pubdate -> user/dyrcona/lp1921537_rdetail_summary_pubdate

description: updated
Revision history for this message
Kathy Lussier (klussier) wrote :


Is this bug ready for a pullrequest tag?

Revision history for this message
Dan Scott (denials) wrote :

Sorry for the late reply. The proposed change would ruin the embedded metadata.

Right now the scope of "datePublished" makes it belong to the top-level CreativeWork entity, where it should be. The proposed change would bring it within the scope of & make it belong to the Organization entity, suggesting that the organization was published at a given date.

When I made the changes to introduce, I deliberately tried not to interfere with the whitespace to minimize the number of lines changed. It sounds like a pullrequest to move the offending line four spaces to the left might be useful here.

Revision history for this message
Jason Stephenson (jstephenson) wrote :

So, what are we saying here? Nothing is wrong and we leave it the way it is, or we just move something four spaces to the left?

I admit it has been a while since I noticed what I thought was a problem in the layout, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the whole thing at this point. (It has been a busy summer.)

Revision history for this message
Dan Scott (denials) wrote :

Jason: Either of your options sounds fine to me; if you think there's a chance that someone else will wander down the same road then the "fix the whitespace" option might be best!

tags: added: opac
removed: tpac
Revision history for this message
Christopher Burton (cburton) wrote :

This display has been updated with the upcoming OPAC update

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers