We are moving to Git Issues for bug tracking in future releases. During transition, content will be in both tools. If you'd like to file a new bug, please create an issue.

Bug 6917 - Issues with date_published usage
Issues with date_published usage
Status: RESOLVED LATER
Product: OJS
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Submissions and Publishing
3.0
All All
: P3 normal
Assigned To: James MacGregor
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-10-06 10:44 PDT by James MacGregor
Modified: 2014-08-05 16:01 PDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Version Reported In:
Also Affects:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description James MacGregor 2011-10-06 10:44:39 PDT
(Courtesy of current oncology)

-- The published_articles.date_published value is set when an article is scheduled to be published, and isn't updated otherwise. 
-- Likewise, the issues.date_published value is set when the issue itself is published. 
-- If the published_articles.date_published value is not null, then this value is used wherever the article's publication date is needed, eg. in metadata tags such as citation_date, and in the "How to Cite Item" Reading Tool. 
-- This is problematic in cases where the article has been scheduled well before the issue itself is published. 

Solution: 
-- possibly rename published_articles.date_published to published_articles.date_scheduled for clarity;
-- possibly rename published_articles to scheduled_articles;
-- when displaying a publication date, use published_articles.date_published ONLY IF it is a more recent date than issues.date_published value (ie. the article has been published later than the issue, as may be the case for rolling publications).
Comment 1 Alec Smecher 2012-12-19 13:53:12 PST
James, if I understand correctly, all of these are back-end changes except the following:

- when displaying a publication date, use published_articles.date_published ONLY IF it is a more recent date than issues.date_published value (ie. the article has been published later than the issue, as may be the case for rolling publications).

I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to rename all the functions, tables, and columns. (We also have to be consistent with other apps that use the same conventions.) However, the change proposed above sounds OK to me.
Comment 2 James MacGregor 2013-02-15 18:33:31 PST
Deferring; this seems like more of a 3.0 kind of thing. Will likely take on after the help work has been completed.
Comment 3 James MacGregor 2014-08-05 16:01:30 PDT
For possible consideration for 3.0 if we hear back from others, but not now.