Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(pacer.email): multi docket NEF bankruptcy short description #1013

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

grossir
Copy link
Contributor

@grossir grossir commented Apr 24, 2024

Changes are basically putting the old parsing inside a for loop, accumulating parsed short_descriptions and choosing the best looking. It doesn't break past examples and will allow us to add the short_description field for multi docket NEFs (we say "multi" but have only seen 2 docket NEFs). Check the GH issue for graphic examples

Solves: #914

Solves:
COURTLISTENER-6Q7
COURTLISTENER-6Q8
COURTLISTENER-6QV
COURTLISTENER-71E

Changes are basically putting the old parsing inside a for loop, accumulating parsed short_descriptions and choosing the best looking. It doesn't break past examples and will allow us to add the short_description field for multi docket NEFs (we say "multi" but have only seen 2 docket NEFs). Check the GH issue for graphic examples

Solves: freelawproject#914

Solves:
COURTLISTENER-6Q7
COURTLISTENER-6Q8
COURTLISTENER-6QV
COURTLISTENER-71E
Copy link
Member

@mlissner mlissner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks...OK. I feel like we need to make sure that the short descriptions we're getting are correct.

Also, do you know if the short descriptions are always the same for all the items in a multi-doc NEF?

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
"pacer_doc_id": null,
"pacer_magic_num": null,
"pacer_seq_no": null,
"short_description": ""
"short_description": "Close Adversary Case - Tri"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure this looks right. Probably we need to check this on the document history report. If you find the case on CL, you can find a link to that report:

image

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
"pacer_doc_id": null,
"pacer_magic_num": null,
"pacer_seq_no": null,
"short_description": ""
"short_description": "Close Adversary Case - Tri"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks off too.

"pacer_doc_id": "092051683160",
"pacer_magic_num": "64349679",
"pacer_seq_no": "3",
"short_description": "Complaint - AP - US Trustee"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would guess that this should just be complaint. Check the document history report?

juriscraper/pacer/email.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@grossir
Copy link
Contributor Author

grossir commented Apr 25, 2024

Also, do you know if the short descriptions are always the same for all the items in a multi-doc NEF?

I don't know with certainty. I would guess from the few examples I have seen, and the general structure of NEF emails:

The only type of "multi" docket NEF we have examples of are 2-docket NEF. Most of them have a subject related to Adversary Case ..something.... It seems to me the logic is that some "single documents" (which may actually be more than a document, considering attachments) become a docket entry mirrored on both linked dockets. In that sense, the subject and short description should be the same, since there is a "single document"

@mlissner
Copy link
Member

there is a "single document"

That's my assumption too. If we lean into that, does that change your code?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Backlog Dec 2-13
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants