Private URL To Unpublished Dataset

[posixeleni]

We are working to integrate with PLOS and they require a private dataset URL (similar to Google Docs or Dropbox links) which can be sent to reviewers to view specific datasets before they are published (read only). The Private URL can also be revoked.

See how figshare handles sharing private URLs: http://figshare.com/blog/figshare_new_features_Get_DOI_or_private_sharing_link/135

[posixeleni]

PLOS has requested that we have this feature available by January 2015. I have spoken with @scolapasta and given the tight schedule for 4.0 we would need to schedule this for post 4.0. We should be able to develop this with about a week of development effort. So it should be feasible to get this done by end of Jan 2015 if everything with 4.0 goes according to schedule.

[posixeleni]

Will work with @eaquigley and @mheppler to design the UI requirements for this feature during the 1st week of November.

[eaquigley]

Functional Requirement Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iL2b4YHYRzrOOgC4J4K0-O14PnNXjiDH31GOGoUF8P0/edit?usp=sharing

[eaquigley]

@posixeleni can we talk about this tomorrow to get everything ready for this to be implemented. now that 4.0 is going to take a little longer than expected, we need to do this with the launch of 4.0.

[eaquigley]

Two options for this were mocked up:
https://iqssharvard.mybalsamiq.com/projects/privateurl-dataverse40/list
https://iqssharvard.mybalsamiq.com/projects/privateurl-dataverse40option2/list

@posixeleni could you please send to PLOS and have them review the two to let us know which works best? thanks.

[posixeleni]

Got a response from PLOS that either option works for them:

Either works for me. If there are
different sharing options, makes sense to put them all on that page.
There might be different options available for the type of "embargo"
we're talking about: when journal article publishes, at a specified date
by author, etc.

[posixeleni]

Got a revised response from PLOS when they asked me to clarify the two options further: (prefer option 1 but either works)

Thanks for the clarification. Either works, but I prefer the first option since it makes it very clear that a private URL is an available functionality.

[eaquigley]

@posixeleni I like option 1 better myself. Is cleaner and easier to get to. Will pass to @scolapasta to determine which developer can implement this.

[pdurbin]

I just left a status update at #3111 (comment) (the pull request for this feature).

Since this issue is mostly about the code from my perspective, I'm going to pass it to @mheppler who can move this to QA when he's done reviewing or changing things in #3174. Please note that there is a separate issue about docs at #3138.

[mheppler]

Workflow displaying "Success!" msg is great. After reviewing with @pdurbin and @scolapasta we're going to fine tune it an improvement to the backing bean.

[pdurbin]

@mheppler @scolapasta and I worked through the final fixes for the success message in 50ae521 . It's working as desired now.

Passing to QA. The pull request is #3111.

[pdurbin]

I took pull request #3111 out of QA due to #3200 and #3201 so I'm taking this out of QA as well.

[pdurbin]

@scolapasta please see #3200 (comment)

[pdurbin]

@scolapasta and @michbarsinai blessed the fix at 24df280 so I merged it into pull request #3111. Passing to QA.

[kcondon]

Tested according to the design doc in github and looks good, closing.