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

Extract data for writs of possession case events #28

Merged

Conversation

ThomasThoren
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #7.

This adds functionality to extract details from case events relating to writs of possession.

The main case event seems to be the "Writ" event, since that includes information such as the the served date, returned date, and who the writ was served to.

The two example cases show there can also be "Writ of Possession Service", "Writ of Possession Requested", "Writ Returned to Court", and "Writ of Possession Sent to Constable's Office" case events. Those case events only have dates in the example cases, but I gave each of them their own methods in the event that some cases have additional information for those event types.

Please let me know what you think!

(6, "Ant, Ten", "01/02/2020"),
# (7, "Ant, Ten", "01/08/2020"),
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure what the expected dates should be here. In case J2-CV-20-000021 (example_7.html), there are two case events that have "Served" dates: the "Service" case event and the "Writ" case event. The logic in hearing.py's was_defendant_served method uses the most-recent "Served" date found, which in this case is for the "Writ" event. Is that correct? Or should was_defendant_served always return the "Service" event's date?

Copy link
Contributor

@jtcasper jtcasper Jul 2, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it should target "Service" case events specifically. They both have RCDSE# headers, but I think that ideally we treat them separate from one another.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, @jtcasper. I created #30 for the issue.

@mscarey mscarey merged commit 9a870e9 into open-austin:master Jul 4, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

get records of writ of possession
3 participants