Skip to content
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

[FEATURE] Improve the configurability of the publication module #417

Open
peer35 opened this issue May 15, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

[FEATURE] Improve the configurability of the publication module #417

peer35 opened this issue May 15, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@peer35
Copy link

peer35 commented May 15, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

After every Yoda upgrade we run into problems with the publication module:

  • DataCite Publisher is set to Utrecht University.
  • The landing page templates revert to the UU versions, with hardcoded references to the UU in the HTML meta tags and a link to UU RDM support.
  • The styling and logo revert to the UU versions.

As rodsadmin we can change the landing page templates but not the CSS, logo and Publisher field.

As far as I know SURF can only fix the setup manually after an upgrade. We try to supply our needed settings before the upgrade, but this workflow is prone to errors and time consuming for both the institution and SURF.

These errors also have a relatively high impact because they can result in incorrect DataCite registrations and are very visible to end-users.

Describe the solution you'd like

Ideally the publication settings should be configurable via a "Yoda Admin page" as in #366 and be persistent over Yoda upgrades.

As an alternative the publication settings should be configurable by a SURF admin as config options before an install/upgrade.

It would also be a bonus if there is an easy way (at least for the SURF admins) to do a test publication with a DataCite TEST configuration, so we do not have to wait for a researcher to publish a real dataset after an upgrade to see if everything is correct. (registering a test dataset in DataCite production is of course a no-go)

Describe alternatives you've considered

Additional context

@Danny-dK
Copy link

This would be great. Ideally you would want to have something like 'if theme is VU, then load all VU associated configurations'. That probably would mean that all required configuration files need to be available in Yoda as default to be loaded by SURF for each institute using Yoda that wants institution themes. I understand that my question regarding the required files and css files for publication module at WUR is registered internally as https://utrechtuniversity.atlassian.net/browse/YDA-5671.

As a side note, I could also imagine that it might have been better to not allow personalization to the extend that is possible. Perhaps just one colour scheme and at the most change logo's, institute name, and email contact addresses, while the publication templates would then contain general information that would be applicable regardless of institute (most of the textual contents of those templates are generic anyway also at UU)?

@Danny-dK
Copy link

Danny-dK commented Jun 6, 2024

@lwesterhof @RobvanSchip
Regarding my email on the files required to be changed for activating the publication module in a certain theme. You indicated that a specific feature request would need to be created and discussed, which would be this feature from Peter. Discussing this with Peter, we kinda had the question why changing colours and adding a logo has to be so complicated. It would be great if there is an easier way to do so. You indicated some aspects will be integrated into an admin page #366. That might take some time and may not be able to configure the landing pages. It would be great in the meantime if an intermediate solution is available (such as creating a neutral colour theme for landing pages (my suggestion, not necessarily Peter's))?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants