{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alphagov/rummager/issues/379","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alphagov/rummager/issues/379/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alphagov/rummager/issues/379/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alphagov/rummager/issues/379/events","html_url":"https://github.com/alphagov/rummager/pull/379","id":64276850,"number":379,"title":"Add history mode fields to Edition schema","user":{"login":"dsingleton","id":63201,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/63201?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton","html_url":"https://github.com/dsingleton","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dsingleton/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":1,"created_at":"2015-03-25T14:02:44Z","updated_at":"2015-03-25T14:15:32Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alphagov/rummager/pulls/379","html_url":"https://github.com/alphagov/rummager/pull/379","diff_url":"https://github.com/alphagov/rummager/pull/379.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/alphagov/rummager/pull/379.patch"},"body":"Updated version of: https://github.com/alphagov/rummager/pull/378\r\n\r\n**New fields:**\r\n- `is_political`: _boolean_\r\n  - If the content is considered political in nature, relfecting\r\n  views of the government it was published under\r\n- `is_historic`: _boolean_\r\n  - If the content is political and published by a previous\r\n  government, it is considered historic and not relfective of the\r\n  current government and can be marked as such.\r\n- `government_name`: _unsearchable_text_\r\n  - The name of the Government that first published\r\n  this document, eg, \"1970 to 1974 Conservative government\"\r\n\r\nThese fields will be used to mark some search results as being under\r\nhistory mode, where political content from previous governments will\r\ndisplayed in the UI as associtated to the government that published\r\nit.\r\n\r\n`government_name` is stored as text, rather than an identifier, as\r\ngovernments are not repsented in content store. Storing the text\r\nisn't normalised, but storing the identifier would require either\r\nRummager or the frontend to perform expansion from identifier to\r\nname.\r\n\r\nNote: if a government name is edited (in WH publisher, currently)\r\nthen content associated to that government will need to be reindexed\r\nfor the updated name to be reflected in search results. This isn't\r\nsomething we expect to happen very often, and are happy running a\r\nmanual reindex if required\r\n\r\nNote: when a government is ended (in WH publisher, currently) all\r\npolitical documents will need to be re-index, to set `is_historic`\r\nin search. This is a once every ~5 year change, and we're happy\r\nrunning a reindex task in this instance.\r\n\r\nIt's possible this could be done as an async task that happens as\r\na result of the government being ended in the publishing tool.\r\n\r\nAs discussed with @edds and @rboulton this morning."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alphagov/rummager/issues/comments/86045733","html_url":"https://github.com/alphagov/rummager/pull/379#issuecomment-86045733","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/alphagov/rummager/issues/379","id":86045733,"user":{"login":"rboulton","id":73564,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/73564?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton","html_url":"https://github.com/rboulton","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rboulton/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-03-25T14:15:32Z","updated_at":"2015-03-25T14:15:32Z","body":"This looks great.  One possible improvement: the field_definitions.json entries are allowed to contain a `\"description\"` field, which is a human-readable description of the contents of the field, for documentation purposes (and also with a view to possibly exposing them in the api in future to make it easier for developers using the API to understand the results). Sadly, I've not been able to populate it for most fields yet, but it would be great to add descriptions for these new fields."}}