These are chat archives for collectiveaccess/support

22nd
Feb 2016
Sami Rahman
@samrahman
Feb 22 2016 02:04
This message was deleted
This message was deleted
This message was deleted
This message was deleted
Sami Rahman
@samrahman
Feb 22 2016 02:09
(the issue is solved :-D )
Kehan Harman
@kehh
Feb 22 2016 09:16
Hi All, I'm using the object location bundle and I'm trying to find a sweet spot. I want users to be able to change the date and authorised by field when updating the storage location. Does it make sense to use movement based location tracking for this or simply interstitials on the object <=> storage location relationship for these values?
CollectiveAccess
@collectiveaccess
Feb 22 2016 11:51
We don't expose object-storage location interstitials in the object location bundle, which means technically movement-based is the way to go here
but if you only ever have one object per "movement" then object-storage location is the way to go
so... if you are looking for a simple method of tracking location per individual object (not groups), then object-storage location with an extension to support interstitials would probably be the nicest option
except that it doesn't fully exist at the present time
PMassoels
@PMassoels
Feb 22 2016 15:06
Hi there
Stefan
@stefankeidel
Feb 22 2016 15:36
Hi
What's up?
PMassoels
@PMassoels
Feb 22 2016 15:37
Hi, I'm doing something wrong in my search query but I can't make up what it is
In most cases this works but when i search by reference it wont
So is there an exception for searching on idno?
Stefan
@stefankeidel
Feb 22 2016 15:41
what do you mean "by reference"?
That query should work
PMassoels
@PMassoels
Feb 22 2016 15:41
the idno
It doesn't i get no results but is there
Stefan
@stefankeidel
Feb 22 2016 15:45
just tried that exact example
works for me
$ curl -XGET 'http://administrator:dublincore@providence.dev/service.php/find/ca_objects?q=ca_objects.idno:FLORA_HBUG20150008'
{"ok":true,"results":[{"object_id":"1","id":"1","idno":"FLORA_HBUG20150008","display_label":"[BLANK]"}]}
did you change anything in your search_indexing.conf?
PMassoels
@PMassoels
Feb 22 2016 15:45
yes
i'll tell you what in a second
Stefan
@stefankeidel
Feb 22 2016 15:48
well, you can't have it both ways
if you omit INDEX_AS_IDNO the content will get tokenized
PMassoels
@PMassoels
Feb 22 2016 15:48
I want an exact match on the idno, what does the query change to that?
Or is there a setting so i can have an exact match and still use the query?
Stefan
@stefankeidel
Feb 22 2016 15:49
you could try DONT_TOKENIZE -- I don't know if that's still supported though
PMassoels
@PMassoels
Feb 22 2016 15:50
In the query itself?
Stefan
@stefankeidel
Feb 22 2016 15:50
no, in the indexing configuration for idno