mechanism for the dateTimeFormat preferred list to be accessed by pasta

[mobb]

pasta (Duane) wants to pull the list of preferred formats from a URL, eg,
ecc-project/master/head/dateTimeFormats_preferredLIst.txt

[mobb]

suggestion: use three branches, one each for development, staging and production. this way, pasta can pull from the branch that is analogous to it's implementation (-d, -s).

[clnsmth]

I've added preferred list of dateTime format strings to github/EDIorg/ECC/practices/dateTimeFormatString and branched into "development", "staging", and "production".

[duanecosta]

I tested this on my local PASTA instance and on the development PASTA it worked fine. The format strings were read from the following URL (on the EDIorg/ECC development branch):

https://github.com/EDIorg/ECC/raw/development/practices/dateTimeFormatString/dateTimeFormatString_list.csv

[mobb]

We should confirm that the way PASTA is using the lists and branches is as planned. Conversation of 2020-06-09 on slack is below with @servilla

Summary: PASTA has been using the dev branch, which as of today, matches the production branch. The staging branch does not have the same files. We should confirm we need these branches (they were useful for a complex check like dateTimeFormatString). Also confirm that PASTA is using the branches as intended.

---

Mark Servilla 12:37 PM
@mob, so we are using the version in the ECC:

dml.preferredFormatStringsURL=https://github.com/EDIorg/ECC/raw/development/practices/dateTimeFormatString/dateTimeFormatString_regex.csv

12:41
so the [file] with examples is only for that (examples)

Mark Servilla 12:41 PM
[PASTA] does appear to being using the development branch though

12:43
is there a preferred branch we should be referencing?

Margaret O'Brien 12:43 PM
I remember talking about that (dev vs master.) I would have to look at notes. right now, they seem to be the same.
I recall that dev was literally, for dev (checks that were not in production yet, portal-d). and master would be what portal and portal-s used.
it had to do with the check cycle - ie, that checks needed to be exposed for a period of time before being in production.

Mark Servilla 12:45 PM
production PASTA is also using the development branch

Margaret O'Brien 12:50 PM
There is even a staging branch, and interestingly, it has one file, whose date matches the original text file you linked to

having 3 branches might be overkill. It seemed like a good idea at the time - the dateTimeFormatString checks were complicated. but I think its the only thing we’ve used branches for.

[servilla]

Also note that the regular expressions that are found in the dateTimeFormatString_regex.csv file are generated using this Python script: https://github.com/PASTAplus/pastaplus_utilities/blob/master/format_string_parser.py