Use standard list of model names in Execute SPARQL CONSTRUCT page - #517
Conversation
chenejac
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@brianjlowe thanks for the PR, looks good and works good. I will also ask Folke to confirm this is resolving his issue.
|
The system was previously running VIVO 1.15.1 and a Solr container. I then replaced the VIVO container in the FATAL: SearchEngineSmokeTest `How did i build the container:
Docker started without an error from the bash. |
@litvinovg do you think this commit might be a solution for this issue? Should Brian cherry pick and add that commit on the PR branch |
Yes, rebasing current PR branch on top of main branch should solve the problem |
8f9d5ed to
7765248
Compare
|
Thanks @meyerfo for trying again. The error stack trace during the unit tests looks to be irrelevant to this issue, but thank you for catching that. I've opened an issue: vivo-project/VIVO#4155. Can you confirm that the jenaIngest/sparqlConstruct.jsp file inside your running Docker container matches what's on the PR branch (e.g., no ModelMaker import on line 5)? |
|
This are the first 5 lines of the sparqlConstruct file. There is the import of the modelmaker. <%@ page import="org.apache.jena.ontology.Individual"%> as discussed, the following branch was used: |
meyerfo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
followed https://wiki.lyrasis.org/spaces/VIVODOC115x/pages/298811876/Using+the+Convert+CSV+to+RDF+ingest+tool
Everything fine.

VIVO4141:
What does this pull request do?
Uses the same list of available model names in the Execute SPARQL CONSTRUCT page that is used in other ingest tool pages. Fixes current bug where only configuration models are offered as source and destination models on this page.
How should this be tested?
Interested parties
@VIVO-project/vivo-committers
Reviewers' report template
Please update the following template which should be used by reviewers.
General comment
A reviewer should provide here comments and suggestions for requested changes if any.
Testing
A reviewer should briefly describe here how it was tested
Code reviewing
A reviewer should briefly describe here which part was code reviewed