Observations missing from alerts

[turley85]

I've detected an issue with species detected in an alert for this list:

https://lists.ala.org.au/speciesListItem/list/dr27419

R alerts have detected the following two occurrences of a species on that list:
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/337b82d0-40a2-4f6a-86b4-1f94ae00d8ce
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/7caed69d-fd06-4cbc-b1a3-ee4182834660

But this is not showing up in the Java alert:

I cant' figure out why. Does anyone else have any clues?

[turley85]

Hmm... I wonder if the fq isn't working for those occurrences missed. IS there anyway we can check this?

(Note, I tried the website in the Alerts documentation... but not sure what a good or bad result would be?)

[kylie-m]

Hi Andrew, for this first row, Nassella trichotoma, the spatial layer cl11170 is the new 2023 LGA layer that is still not yet loaded properly. I've tried a test run using cl10923 and I'm now getting at least one of the records through now, https://lists.ala.org.au/speciesListItem/list/dr28056 - will keep working on this one!

As an aside, could you quickly check the spatialObject ID numbers on the rest of this list?
I think there could be an issue with the spatialObjects in the remaining rows - all but one. It appears spatialObject:9433231 on line two (Solanum elaeagnifolium) is correct, but the rest are sequential numbers (I'm guessing from excel) most don't have an associated spatialObject, and those that do appear incorrect.

[turley85]

Thanks @kylie-m,

Those sequential FQ are a pain, I'll double check all other lists, but it's an error I'm aware of.

So should I update all lists to run off cl10923?

And did we ever get to the bottom of why cl11170 isn't loaded properly? Is this being remedied?

[kylie-m]

Thanks Andrew, yes cl10923 is best for now. Now that Amanda is back, I've reached out and will work with her around loading of LGA 2023 layer.

[turley85]

@kylie-m, I'm still not getting that list to show those Nassella trichotoma records. https://lists.ala.org.au/speciesListItem/list/dr27419 has the fq updated for cl10923, with LGA names matching those I can see in the spatial portal https://spatial.ala.org.au/?layers=psma_lga_2018

Any ideas as to what's still missing to get this to work?

[kylie-m]

Hi @turley85 I just had a look at the fq query column, a couple of things to note -

1. there was a space between the " and NILLUMBIK, though that didn't seem to be the issue
2. a bit strange but I've got it working with the alternate wording that includes SHIRE or CITY, ie YARRA RANGES SHIRE and NILLUMBIK SHIRE

• it's working on my test list https://lists.ala.org.au/speciesListItem/list/dr28056

So I've fixed that up in your VIC_DEECA_Weeds_list fq column and am now getting a record for Nassella trichotoma coming through in preview mode for records since 01/01/2024. :)

[turley85]

I see Nassella trichotoma is now turning up.

However, we're still not getting an alert for the orginal missing observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/239545092

Update - BioSecurity alert for VIC_DEECA_Weeds_list.pdf

Also, as the spatial layer doesn't display "Shire" Or "City" consistently, how are we to know what the correct matching name is?