upon unembargo set embargoedUntil

[yarikoptic]

Ref dandi/dandi-schema#143 and motivation I have expressed yesterday in our dandi-standup - to be able to discover which dandisets became public from first being embargoed. Going through dandisets which have embargoedUntil set would provide an indirect answer. Also IMHO it would be more factually correct than e.g. some hypothetical date user or us set in metadata while provisionally planning the study: seeing some future date for unembargo in a public dataset would be pretty much incorrect metadata IMHO.

[yarikoptic]

@AlmightyYakob while you are dealing with unemabrgo related code, may be could address this one?

[jjnesbitt]

Would this apply to both dandisets and assets?

[yarikoptic]

my main use case was dandisets. Assets: I am not 100% we want that since after unembargoing that asset becomes "first class citizen" and might appear in various dandisets which might have never been embargoed or we might even end up with allowing them to come into embargoed dataset... I just wonder if setting that field for unemabrgoed asset would just add some ambiguity while not addressing some specific use case. WDYT @satra -- should we set embargoedUntil on assets or not? see any use/case?

[satra]

both metadata can be modified via a PUT by an arbitrary client, so the question is how long embargoedUntil stays? we can apply it to all, but it will also need logic to keep the field value when metadata mutates. since this is really about a timestamp, if the same operation logic applies, we could apply to all.

however, the only use case at present is yours @yarikoptic so i leave it to your call. i still see the actual record as part of provenance capture in the graphdb once we get that going.

[yarikoptic]

Re-reading, I stick to my opinion that at least for now we should apply it only to dandisets to not cause various disturbances and inconsistencies in the future. Should be an easy change, right?

[waxlamp]

The audit feature will include "unembargo" as a significant action. Would that be sufficient to meet the requirements implied by this issue? That is, would our audit design, once implemented, close this?

[satra]

audit is still a logger type of thing. this particular issue is more about what happens during unembargo. so if anything, this is updating the unembargo action. similar to #1831