Use 109 normalized record symbols

[JPrevost]

Note: I have kept quite a few commits as I realized it might be easier to look through each data element rather than the full change set. I didn't start doing that until I had finished Primo though, but those were simpler so hopefully it'll be fine.

Please check both USE and GDT versions in a running application (PR build or local) and compare to staging tiers to ensure everything works as expected. I think I caught everything and inadvertently fixed a but in GeoData prod while making these changes.

https://mitlibraries.atlassian.net/browse/USE-109

Developer

Accessibility

• ANDI or WAVE has been run in accordance to our guide.
• This PR contains no changes to the view layer.
• New issues flagged by ANDI or WAVE have been resolved.
• New issues flagged by ANDI or WAVE have been ticketed (link in the Pull Request details above).
• No new accessibility issues have been flagged.

New ENV

• All new ENV is documented in README.
• All new ENV has been added to Heroku Pipeline, Staging and Prod.
• ENV has not changed.

Approval beyond code review

• UXWS/stakeholder approval has been confirmed.
• UXWS/stakeholder review will be completed retroactively.
• UXWS/stakeholder review is not needed.

Additional context needed to review

E.g., if the PR includes updated dependencies and/or data
migration, or how to confirm the feature is working.

Code Reviewer

Code

• I have confirmed that the code works as intended.
• Any CodeClimate issues have been fixed or confirmed as
  added technical debt.

Documentation

• The commit message is clear and follows our guidelines
  (not just this pull request message).
• The documentation has been updated or is unnecessary.
• New dependencies are appropriate or there were no changes.

Testing

• There are appropriate tests covering any new functionality.
• No additional test coverage is required.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 19079973874

Details

• 18 of 19 (94.74%) changed or added relevant lines in 4 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 98.284%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
app/helpers/record_helper.rb	0	1	0.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 19074206176:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	859
Relevant Lines:	874

---

💛 - Coveralls

[jazairi]

Gnarly as expected! I did some smoke testing in GeoData and USE against their corresponding staging apps. I'm seeing all the fields I expect to see, and as you noted, you fixed an issue that was preventing metadata in geo_data_info from rendering.

It does make me feel a bit odd that we now use symbols as keys for top-level fields, but continue to use strings as keys for subfields. I think I'm okay with it, though, since it appears to be consistent.

Great work wrangling this! I'm sure it was awful, but it's an excellent refactor.

[JPrevost]

@jazairi

It does make me feel a bit odd that we now use symbols as keys for top-level fields, but continue to use strings as keys for subfields. I think I'm okay with it, though, since it appears to be consistent.

Yeah, I should have noted that I felt that way too. I'm not opposed to another round of refactor at some point but wanted to get this messy bit done before we decide if we want to take it further.