Adapt UI to the new GRSciColl data model

[marcos-lg]

The following changes have to be adapted in the UI since some of them are breaking changes:

• These new fields have been added: GRSciColl fields to add - GRSciColl data schema review registry#552
• Collection geography field renamed: GRSciColl collection geography should be geographicCoverage registry#551
• Fields that are converted into multivalue fields: GRSciColl fields which should have multiple values - GRSciColl data schema review registry#550
• Fields that have been removed (importantCollectors hasn't been removed yet and it will be done when the collection descriptors are implemented): GRSciColl fields to discard - GRSciColl data schema review registry#545
• Fields that have been converted into vocabularies (ignore the IdentifierType one): GRSciColl vocabularies to put in vocabulary servers - GRSciColl data schema review registry#549 . In the API I use the latest release of the vocabulary just in case, so I think you can do the same, e.g.: http://api.gbif-dev.org/v1/vocabularies/Discipline/concepts/latestRelease . Also see: GRSciColl - use controlled vocabulary from vocabulary server #558
• add button to download entities as latimer core

This is not a priority but I also added the Latimer Core endpoints:

• https://api.gbif-dev.org/v1/grscicoll/institution/latimerCore
• https://api.gbif-dev.org/v1/grscicoll/institution/latimerCore/ab720de9-308a-4aae-afba-74d7f91ca886
• POST and PUT to those endpoints above passing the body in LatimerCore format
• The same for collections

These changes are only available in DEV for the moment and will be deployed to the other environments together with the UI.

[ManonGros]

Concerning Latimer Core, when it comes to the UI, for now I think we could do one of the followings:

1. Have a button (on the GRScicoll entry pages and/or on the search result page) which is the API call to access data formatted as Latimer Core. And have one in the registry UI for uploading data as LtC
2. Just have a link to the API that specifies that you can access and upload GRSciColl data formatted as Latimer core.

Maybe for now (and given that it isn't urgent), I vote for number 2.

[ManonGros]

See also the issue about addresses: gbif/registry#546

[ManonGros]

Thanks @MortenHofft!

For the drop down selection of vocabulary, could there be some visual cue to show that the concepts are nested? Right now, it is the same as the enum drop down list.

Ideally, when I manage to add the definitions to the concepts as well, I would like to show that there are definitions. Maybe some (i) and the definition shown when hovering? (I am not sure what is best here). This part isn't as important as showing that the concepts aren't flat.

[MortenHofft]

@ManonGros Is it a feature that is preventing us from going to production? Or is what we have in uat better than prod?

In other words can we take it to production in its current state and then you can leave a distinct issue for improving the dropdown? Or is it a critical bug that prevents us from going live?

[ManonGros]

We can't take it to production because now the values have almost no context.

For example, this is what we have currently on prod where "archeological" is repeated for each sub value.

This is what we have on dev:

There is "archeological" as its own concept way down below and the context for each sub concept is gone. It looks more confusing than before.

Ideally, we would have something in the drop down that shows the nested aspect of the concepts:

Archeological
|-> C14
|-> humain remains
|-> ...

If not, then we should at least have something equivalent to what we have now where the parent concept is displayed for each sub-concept. Something like this:

• Archeological
• Archeological | C14
• Archeological | humain remains
• Archeological | ...

[ManonGros]

@MortenHofft For the GRSciColl (hosted) portal, we also need to add the temporal coverage field on collection pages and display the images when provided (the later I couldn't test on dev because there is a bug preventing me to save changes).
Should I log it as a separate issue?

[MortenHofft]

Personally I prefer individual issues over mega issues yes. especially when it concerns another project. Hosted portals and registry-console are independent projects/code bases.

[ManonGros]

Thanks @MortenHofft ! I logged two issues there: gbif/hosted-portals#287 gbif/hosted-portals#286

[ManonGros]

Thanks Morten! That will work for prod