Related material improvements

[mInnes-archives]

PR adds some small improvements to how related materials are listed in descriptions and in relevant edit forms:

1. If draft descriptions are linked, these will now only be visible to authenticated users. [bug fix]
2. The title of linked descriptions now include the level of description and reference code for descriptions with such values, as well as the draft status when relevant. Both BS2 & BS5 themes are covered.

With regards to the second point, given that titles can be fairly generic in an archival context, just having the title alone ends up being really unclear and unhelpful at times. At BC Archives we have been avoiding using the 'Related materials' field because of how it displays. We've just been using the 'Associated materials' field instead, which technically isn't what it's intended for. Hopefully this can help get us using the appropriate field in the future and benefit from having reciprocal links. I imagine there are others who might be avoiding it or finding it not as clear as it could be for users for similar reasons.

[sarah-mason]

Hi @mInnes-archives - thanks for your contribution! As the Contributor Success Specialist, I wanted to update you on this PR. I have notified Enterprise services about this and they will be contacting you in the new year to move forward. I will also discuss this further with the AtoM Maintainers. If you have any additional questions, feel free to contact me or the Community Team at [email protected]

[mInnes-archives]

Thanks for the update @sarah-mason.

I have notified Enterprise services about this and they will be contacting you in the new year to move forward.

Assuming I'm understanding this correctly, I'd like to provide some clarification to avoid some confusion - if Enterprise Services is to contact whomever our point of contact is at BC Archives, it's unlikely that they will know anything about this PR. I'm just an Archivist who works for BC Archives at the moment. I only mentioned my place of work to give some real world justification since some of this is motivated by conversations I've had with some of the other Archivists regarding why we aren't using this field. This is more in line with the stuff I've done in the past as an independent community contributor for AtoM. It's more of a hobby.

[sarah-mason]

Thank you for the additional context - if Enterprise does contact want to anyone about it, I have recommended they contact you first. We welcome all to contribute and having user experience of AtoM's and its features (and its bugs) can be useful for deciding what to tackle with development. I am bringing this to the AtoM Maintenance team to discuss as well, so we will be in contact further by the new year.

[sarah-mason]

Hi @mInnes-archives - do you think you could email me at [email protected]? We don't have an updated email for you and I would like to contact you about some community stuff. Thank you and happy new year!