-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Ongoing DevOps/Prod. support tasks. Oct. 10 - 23 (?) #310
Comments
The other somewhat time-consuming prod. task this week was diagnosing the minor DataCite bug on Tue. But that was handled under the "Upgrade to 6.4" issue, for accounting purposes. |
@landreev I very much support a |
@cmbz We have a way to destroy an entire dataset - but it's kind of a brute force, if not nuclear option. In this particular case, the researchers would have to sacrifice a dataset that's been around for a while (and, possibly, cited or referenced elsewhere by its DOI), simply because one of them uploaded and published a wrong file in a later version by mistake. There is no easy way to destroy a deaccessioned version; and there is no easy way to destroy a published file - and yes, it really looks like it would be useful to have! |
FWIW: The retention period functionality from DANS/Paul Boon is intended for this purpose. It explicitly did not deal with physical file deletion though, since there was concern about automating that/always physically deleting at the end of a retention period. So - mostly agreeing that a delete published file endpoint would be useful. |
We also spent some time with Rei (LTS) walking us through the anti-bot rules on the Harvard ALB. Closing, will open a new one. |
There was a time-consuming support issue (RT #370734), with users who had published a file with some restricted data by mistake; they were not satisfied with the fact that the file stayed on our servers even once deaccessioned. Documenting the process of purging the file from storage in the "tips and tricks" document.
As a side note, maybe we should consider adding a straightforward "destroy" call for a published file, since the scenario above may be fairly common/commonsense. It may be something superuser-only, but still readily-available.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: