Not all required fields are indicated in fields.csv

[kspurgin]

The current iteration (as of this issue creation) of fields.csv is solely based on the ArchivesSpace schemas.

Some required fields are only in indicated in the ArchivesSpace JSONModel or ASModel code.

Plan

• @livsolis will indicate missing (or otherwise incorrect) required fields
• @kspurgin will use this information to add hardcoded overrides to indicate that those fields are required. Ideally these overrides will each include a conditional that checks the ArchivesSpace code where the "require" is enforced, so that we can get warnings if things change in future releases.

[livsolis]

@kspurgin, how does this sound? I add a column required. within that column may be

• required: required to save the record at all
• conditional: conditionally required if the subrecord is added to a main record type
  The only weird thing is repeatable sub-records with at least one subrecord requires. e.g. one Date subrecord is required to save a Resource record at all. You can add more Dates, and if you do then certain fields are required.

Open to other suggestions for values/columns.

[livsolis]

Sorry misunderstood my task, which seems to be verification not filling out! There is already a populated required column. Not sure about the edge case I mentioned above, but will come back to it.

[livsolis]

Hey @kspurgin, sorry for the delay here, but I am finally getting to verification. I created a new branch. I will just plan on correcting anything I see, but I am wondering if we want to handle the case where a major record type requires at least one of a subrecord type (e.g. linked agent, date, extent...). But thereafter those repeatable fields and their required fields become conditionally required. Straight up yes. This e.g. affects resources (language, date, extent), event (linked agent, linked record, date). Straight up "y" in required?

[kspurgin]

As discussed in meeting, these are the ones that currently have "y (in required subrecord)"

The intent of this is to express "YES, this is required, but it's required in the subrecord that is required."