-
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
unexpectedly cubes with schema:version
== 1 have schema:datePublished
twice
#1502
Comments
schema:version
have schema:datePublished
twiceschema:version
== 1 have schema:datePublished
twice
To sum up, you pointed to a line in code which adds a timestamp to The problematic scenario, related to the source code line referenced above, happens in cases when the publisher has provided a date in the cube metadata. Hence, two values. First step to fix would be to only set |
💯 |
I understand we should use the date part of the timestamp variable as a default value for |
@giacomociti on version ==1 there occur two that's what I understand until now. Tom may give you more info on the situation 👍 |
self-reminder: the |
@tpluscode in this query https://s.zazuko.com/25fyGL1 one can see that the bug is not contained to version 1 |
or it might be two bugs |
likely it's a separate issue. A |
@giacomociti for the separate issue: just guessing based on a recent odd experience... thus the question:
goal:
|
it's worth investigating if a cube can be republished with the same version, but I would first merge the changes so far |
Another very particular situation to check: what happens if publish is run twice at the same time? |
that may likely be the cause of the unexpected multiple values for many properties :) |
bug
upon publishing cube version 1 unexpectedly
schema:datePublished
occurs twice.https://s.zazuko.com/uaQE2x
oddly there occurs a
dateTime
fix
new cubes with version 1 have only one
schema:datePublished
usingdate
note
this issue only occurs with version 1
see also
cube-creator/cli/lib/metadata.ts
Line 205 in 4a9a139
@CDiGallo as we just discussed.
cc @ortnever (republishing works as an ugly workaround)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: