docs: record Question Spec migration status; file ISSUE-80 follow-up - #317
Merged
dwolfson merged 3 commits intoAug 28, 2026
Merged
Conversation
docs/design/report_spec_migration_design.md: adds a 'Migration status' section confirming Phase 1 completed 2026-05-18 (commit 6c946af) and re-verified stable 2026-08-28 -- no reversion, no open PYEGERIA_ISSUES.md entries against it. Notes Phase 2 (formats/action/target_type/family) hasn't started. PYEGERIA_ISSUES.md: files ISSUE-80 -- find_report_specs_by_perspective/find_report_specs_by_question (base_report_formats.py) are real, tested, working queries over the Egeria-sourced question_spec data, but aren't exported from pyegeria/__init__.py, registered as an MCP tool, or wired into any hey_egeria/commands CLI surface. Not a bug, not dead code to remove -- a follow-up to actually expose them. Signed-off-by: Dan Wolfson <dan.wolfson@pdr-associates.com>
…ctive<->Question via AssignmentScope, reader expects ScopedBy Confirmed via Egeria's own type registry (OpenMetadataType.java): AssignmentScope and ScopedBy are genuinely distinct relationship types (different GUIDs, different Properties classes), not aliases. The bootstrap migration script creates the wrong one, so load_egeria_report_specs()'s ScopedBy lookup finds nothing for any bulk-migrated question -- its folder-name-inference fallback is the only thing that has ever populated a perspective for the 74 originally-migrated report types. The Dr.Egeria 'Link Perspective to Question' command is unaffected -- it correctly uses the real ScopedBy endpoint. Signed-off-by: Dan Wolfson <dan.wolfson@pdr-associates.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
section confirming Phase 1 completed 2026-05-18 (`6c946af`) and
re-verified stable 2026-08-28 — no reversion, no open
`PYEGERIA_ISSUES.md` entries against it. Updates the stale top-line
status ("ready for Phase 1 planning") and notes Phase 2
(`formats`/`action`/`target_type`/`family`) hasn't started.
`find_report_specs_by_perspective`/`find_report_specs_by_question`
(`base_report_formats.py`) are real, tested, working queries over the
Egeria-sourced `question_spec` data merged in by
`load_egeria_report_specs()` — not leftover pre-migration code, not
candidates for removal — but aren't exported from `pyegeria/init.py`,
registered as an MCP tool, or wired into any `hey_egeria`/`commands` CLI
surface. A follow-up to expose them, not a bug.
Docs only, no code changes.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code