Connects to #1466: Allow query via DOIs when adding a new Article #1947
Conversation
markmandell
commented
Jun 17, 2019
markmandell
commented
- GCI => New Gene Curation => Add Article
- Search via DOI (some example DOIs)
- 10.1093/jnci/djq238
- 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2014.01.019
- 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.02.002
- Form validation when searching by a DOI/PMID already associated with an article
- Validation to recognize a "bad" DOI/PMID
- UI changes in modal reflect the addition of DOIs (Add Article, Edit PMID/DOI, Add New Article)
- Left hand side of Curation Central - Article "cards" - Long DOI should not overflow past length of card, should be hidden
- Tests associated with Add Article modal have updated text and pass
|
When the length of a DOI is longer than the "card" and another article is currently selected, it looks like the overflow is not hidden. Is this intended? Below is a screenshot of what I mean.
|
|
DOI overflow now hidden for selected/non-selected articles. Thanks @h-tong ! |
| <PmidSummary article={annotation.article} /> | ||
| </div> | ||
| <div className="pmid-selection-list-pmid"><a href={external_url_map['PubMed'] + annotation.article.pmid} target="_blank">PMID: {annotation.article.pmid}</a></div> | ||
| { annotation.article.doi ? <div className="pmid-selection-list-pmid"><a href={external_url_map['PubMed'] + annotation.article.pmid} target="_blank">DOI: {annotation.article.doi}</a></div> : null} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible for annotation.article to be undefined? Accessing annotation.article.doi or annotation.article.pmid could throw an error if annotation.article is undefined.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey Howard! Apologies for it taking a while to come back to this. I have not been able to recreate the issue with an undefined article. Wanted to ask which steps you took when testing to recreate it and figure it out! Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I didn't run into it. I was just wondering if it could ever be the case. I was thinking it could be safer to add a check to make sure the properties are defined, but since we both haven't come across it, then maybe it should be fine.
2 participants
