Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Aug 27, 2019. It is now read-only.

Allow linking to Schedule 70 contract #101

Open
ajb opened this issue Mar 18, 2016 · 3 comments
Open

Allow linking to Schedule 70 contract #101

ajb opened this issue Mar 18, 2016 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@ajb
Copy link
Contributor

ajb commented Mar 18, 2016

Every S70 contract has a URI associated with it, so it seems like a good candidate for an object instead of an array, e.g.

{ "s70":  "http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/contractorInfo.do?contractNumber=GS-35F-142DA&contractorName=DEPARTMENT+OF+BETTER+TECHNOLOGY%2C+INC.+THE&executeQuery=YES" }
@stroupaloop
Copy link
Contributor

good call and this should actually be a requirement instead of an option, will make the update. I didn't see a direct way to search for vendors on the schedule through the website, am I missing something? This way I can find the existing ones in the current listing of companies reporting they are on Schedule 70.

@stroupaloop
Copy link
Contributor

another issue that may take some time with this change is the conversion from

contracts: [
    "micro",
    "s70"
]

to

contracts: {
    "micro": true,
    "s70": https://url.com
}

when being applied to the current list of products

@ajb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ajb commented Mar 22, 2016

I didn't see a direct way to search for vendors on the schedule through the website, am I missing something?

Yeah, search & permalinks aren't something that gov't IT does very well... I bet someone else will know, though.

another issue that may take some time with this change is the conversion...

Seems like there's a case for a script that can loop through each product listing, read the JSON, make arbitrary changes, and write out the new JSON. The only downside to modifying the JSON structure would be having to fix any PRs that are in-progress, but it wouldn't be too bad...

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants