Overview
Our current workaround for the plan specs isn't working - it's looking up to the dataset_field and returning too many incorrect fields. This means that the fields shown in the dataset table and on the download lambda are incorrect or misleading.
This has come out of two issues:
- Our collection is still called 'local-plan' but the specification is called
plan. The submit service assumes that collection name and specification name will match.
- Even if they did match, the plan spec has only the standard for a generic plan with conditional fields based on which dataset is being used. The submit service cannot handle this yet.
As an interim measure, we should create the specs for local, minerals, waste, supplementary plans and plan timetable in the submit repo and hardcode the service to use these instead of looking to the actual specification.
We should then further discuss how we make this work in general going forward.
Overview
Our current workaround for the plan specs isn't working - it's looking up to the dataset_field and returning too many incorrect fields. This means that the fields shown in the dataset table and on the download lambda are incorrect or misleading.
This has come out of two issues:
plan. The submit service assumes that collection name and specification name will match.As an interim measure, we should create the specs for local, minerals, waste, supplementary plans and plan timetable in the submit repo and hardcode the service to use these instead of looking to the actual specification.
We should then further discuss how we make this work in general going forward.