service-manual-publisher: # Disparity between the database and the publishing API
Disparity between the database and the publishing API
There is some disparity between the content as it appears in our own database and the content as it appears in the publishing api.
If at any point we switch to using the publishing api's content history feature, or we switch to using the publishing api as our main source of truth for content, we'll need to address one or more of these issues.
Orphaned Content Items
When we allowed the URL to be edited up until a content item was published we were unwittingly creating a bunch of content items that no longer relate to guides in our publisher.
The impact today is very little. They're just "lost" in the publishing api.
Initially the frontend did not present change notes for guides. Once this feature was added, we reviewed the way that edition types (minor / major) and change notes had been used, and discovered that they were inconsistent and not always useful to the reader.
Therefore a number of rake tasks were run which updated the database.
The first rake task modified past editions – updating change notes, changing edition types, etc.
Finally, the third rake task rewrote the history of one guide which had two published editions with version 1. This happened because of a bug in the publisher where versions of the form opened in a browser could be saved 'out of order' – no locking was implemented.
These rake tasks only updated the editions in the publishers own database. No attempt was made to reconcile the history as it appears in the publishing platform. This worked because when the guide history is collated within publisher using the edition history from the database.