Hot fix for missing api v1 reference in PlatePresenter

[sdjmchattie]

Note: I will release from this branch as well as merging when this is approved.

Changes proposed in this pull request

• Add the api attribute for the ExtendedCsv module.
• Pass the attribute in to the presenter if it supports it (currently only PlatePresenter).

Instructions for Reviewers

[All PRs] - Confirm PR template filled
[Feature Branches] - Review code
[Production Merges to main]
    - Check story numbers included
    - Check for debug code
    - Check version

[codeclimate]

Code Climate has analyzed commit 39ef0e7 and detected 0 issues on this pull request.

The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0% (50% is the threshold).

This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 91.1% (0.0% change).

View more on Code Climate.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.95%. Comparing base (dac2eb4) to head (c634056).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1959   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.95%   77.95%           
=======================================
  Files         459      459           
  Lines       17692    17695    +3     
  Branches      225      225           
=======================================
+ Hits        13791    13794    +3     
  Misses       3899     3899           
  Partials        2        2           

Flag	Coverage Δ
javascript	69.69% <ø> (ø)
pull_request	77.95% <100.00%> (?)
push	77.95% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
ruby	91.11% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[StephenHulme]

I assume you've tested this or is it an attempt to fix? Is it worth a test to catch in future?

[sdjmchattie]

I assume you've tested this or is it an attempt to fix? Is it worth a test to catch in future?

I have not tested this as I don't know how to hit this code. But I'm 99.9% sure this fixes it.
I was thinking about writing a test, but this is API v1 and will be going in the bin in the next few weeks. Hence the TODO.

I think getting production in a working state takes priority over fiddling with tests.