Account for change in alldocs field name from type to _type_and_ancestors

[sujaypatil96]

In this PR we are updating the logic for the /data_objects/study/{study_id} endpoint to use the newly renamed field name in alldocs called _type_and_ancestors (which previously used to be called type).

Details

...

Related issue(s)

Fixes #850

Related subsystem(s)

• Runtime API (except the Minter)
• Minter
• Dagster
• Project documentation (in the docs directory)
• Translators (metadata ingest pipelines)
• MongoDB migrations
• Other

Testing

• I tested these changes (explain below)
• I did not test these changes

I tested these changes by...

Documentation

• I have not checked for relevant documentation yet (e.g. in the docs directory)
• I have updated all relevant documentation so it will remain accurate
• Other (explain below)

Maintainability

• Every Python function I defined includes a docstring (test functions are exempt from this)
• Every Python function parameter I introduced includes a type hint (e.g. study_id: str)
• All "to do" or "fix me" Python comments I added begin with either # TODO or # FIXME
• I used black to format all the Python files I created/modified
• The PR title is in the imperative mood (e.g. "Do X") and not the declarative mood (e.g. "Does X" or "Did X")

[aclum]

I would like to see this accompanied by a test to guard against future changes. #817 appears to the PR that introduced this problem where I would have expected a failed test. I did see that @eecavanna made some comments recently #725

Also since the endpoint is not working as expected we should discuss if this should be a hotfix. I would prefer this instead of waiting until the next monthly release cc @pkalita-lbl @shreddd

[shreddd]

@sujaypatil96 - can you add a test to ensure that we have a way to verify that the endpoint is working moving forward?

[shreddd]

NVM - I see the testing being addressed in #725

[eecavanna]

In case y'all want to merge in the tests I have written already (they are in branch 725, which is part of draft PR 849) and build on top of those in this branch, that would be OK with me. One way you could do that is by editing PR 849 so that its "base branch" is this issue-850 one, instead of main.

[sujaypatil96]

I was thinking the same thing @eecavanna. I'll help add more test cases to PR #849 today. We can edit the "base branch" to be issue-850, make sure all the tests are passing and merge it in.

[dwinston]

merging to update base of #849

[eecavanna]

Side note: My git client is not showing the original branch (issue-850) as having been merged into main; yet it does show that commit (410856f) as having been merged into main.

Hi @dwinston, did you by any chance merge these changes in with a "squash" commit (via something other than the GitHub UI)?